The idea of the prisoner's dilemma was initiated by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher, two RAND Corporation scientists, and was further developed by Albert W. Tucker, a Princeton University mathematician. In the classic styling of the dilemma, police interrogate two suspects in separate rooms. Each prisoner can either confess, and implicate the other, or choose to remain silent. However, no matter what the other suspect does, the prisoners improve their own, individual position with a confession. If one confesses, then the other one had better do likewise to avoid the serious sentence that awaits an obstinate holdout. But if the other keeps quiet, then only one can obtain the favorable treatment accorded a state's witness. In the end, however, if both confess, the outcome is worse for both of them than if both choose to remain silent.

Now, for purposes of this discussion, assume that the parties are two altruistic people who are deeply concerned for each other's welfare, rather than two selfish people who do not know one another. How will they deliberate? What factors will influence their decision? What choices will they make? And finally, what do their choices tell you about the relative merits of altruism versus egoism?