La Geopolítica Clásica, progreso y vigencia

Reciprocity

If the avoidance of doing good and behaving well is irresponsibility, then selfish- ness is doing harm through a pursuit of self-interest. This section discusses human beings’ inclinations to act either selfishly or altruistically. The assumption that Clearly the secret services must be allowed to keep their secrets. But such secrecy is only tenable in peaceful democracies if the agencies are seen to act within the law and the principles of civil liberty. This requires a good deal more openness than they have shown in recent decades – and more vigorous scrutiny by the parliamentary committee set up to watch over them 11 years ago.

In the present case, the authorities must show that they have not done a shabby deal by promising to soft-pedal charges in exchange for silence. If Mr Shayler has revealed important secrets – as the authorities appear to believe – he must be prosecuted vigorously, however embarrassing his defence might prove.

Equally, the police, who are now investigating his charges against the service, must find ways to demonstrate that they are doing the job properly. Mr Shayler’s accusations may be found eventually to be insubstantial or wildly exaggerated. But if the authorities take Mr Shayler seriously enough to prosecute him, there must be a presumption that his allegations against the service deserve, at the least, serious investigation.

(Source: Leader article, Financial Times, 22 August 2000. Copyright © The Financial Times Limited. Reproduced with permission) Shayler appeared in Court in August 2002 and was charged with passing on information without the consent of his employers. He pleaded not guilty but was found guilty and sentenced to six months in prison. He appealed on the grounds that he was acting in the public interest but he was denied this defence by the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords.

Was David Shayler’s whistleblowing justified?

Were the British authorities acting in a socially responsible way in choosing the offence David Shayler was charged with?

Discussion activity 2.5

Reciprocity

Morality Ethics

selfishness is the norm in the behaviour of human beings may be unsafe. Research into the evolution of insects and animals suggests that altruism, sacrific- ing oneself to benefit others, may be the result of evolutionary selection. Reciprocity is perhaps a more appropriate term than altruism because such behaviour anticipates a future benefit for the individual’s near relatives, if not for the individual. One form of reciprocity is called kin selection. It accounts for the altruistic behaviours found among ants, bees and wasps. Individuals in these species, it is suggested, forego their own opportunity to breed in order to support the queen, their sister, in rearing large numbers of offspring. By doing this they will increase the total number of offspring that are born bearing genes similar to their own. This characteristic is particularly noticeable among bees, ants and wasps because their odd genetic system means that they are more closely related to their sisters than they are to their offspring. Reciprocity can also be a successful evolutionary allele (genetic trait) in animal evolution. Some writers, such as Dugatkin (2000), argued, controversially, that studies of altruism in animals and insects can provide clues for improving human cooperation. Of course this behaviour will only develop if in the long run ‘cheats’ (individuals who accept but do not return the favour) are ‘punished’. This issue is most often studied through the medium of a games theory scenario known as the Prisoners’ Dilemma.

The Prisoners’ Dilemma involves two imaginary prisoners who have jointly committed a murder. They have been arrested by the police and put in sepa- rate cells. They have not

been able to talk to each other since the murder and the police make sure that they cannot communicate in the police station. The police have inadequate information to charge them with murder but they could charge both of them with possessing ille- gal weapons. The two prisoners are interrogated separately. They have a choice of two options, to confess or to keep silence. The consequences of each option, in terms of number of years in gaol, are shown in the pay-off figure (Figure 2.2).

If both prisoners confess they will each receive the

DEFINITIONS 10 years gaol Not Confess Prisoner A Prisoner B 1 year in gaol 6 years gaol Confess Confess 6 years gaol 2 years gaol 2 years gaol 1 year in gaol Not Confess 10 years gaol Prisoner A Key Prisoner B

The Prisoners’ Dilemma can only be avoided if the players exist in a continuing community in which cheats are punished. In these circumstances the players have to continue to meet, which enables trust to develop. Selfishness will occur, on this analysis, where there is a lack of trust or where people do not see themselves as being in the same community as those whom they harm by their selfishness.

These issues can be seen in the following case studies. In Case study 2.6 altru- ism was present because all the players saw themselves as part of the same community and there were opportunities for the altruism to be reciprocated. But even in this situation the person explaining the situation found it hard to decide whether the recipients were trustworthy and who were likely to recipro- cate his altruism.

normal sentence for murder of six years’ imprisonment. If they both keep silent the police have insufficient evidence and they will be charged for the weapons offence for which the sentence is two years in prison each. This is the best option for both of them. However, if one confesses after doing a deal with the police, he will only get one year in prison but the one who kept silent will have the book thrown at him and will receive the maximum penalty of ten years. Neither prisoner knows what the other will do because they cannot com- municate. If each prisoner feels they can trust the other then neither will confess and both will receive a relatively light tariff of two years’ prison each. However, if one keeps silent, but the other ‘cheats’ and confesses, the silent one will receive a harsh ten years. If a prisoner feels he cannot trust the other then the best bet is to confess. The worst that can happen is six years in prison but the worst that can happen if he does not confess is ten years. This is the Prisoners’ Dilemma, whether they can trust each other enough to achieve the best outcome for both of them by both not confessing.

Case study 2.6