It seems that the prisoner's dilemma mentioned here differs from the typical (from at least my perspective) prisoner's dilemma in the sense that rewards for both defecting are equal to instead of greater then the rewards for the one that cooperates in the defect/cooperate case. This leads to the outcome of whenever one person (p1) is known to defect (p2) no longer stands a chance to gain anything. Unless this game is repeated in which case punishments make sense (p2) has no game theory incentive to pick one case over the other outside of made deals such as the ultimatum. The difference between the two would only be the money (p1) walks away with. So instead of a prisoner's dilemma it turns into (p2) having the two moves *cooperate (p1) gets money *defect (p1) gets no money from here it would seem that even though (p1) did something that was to (p2)'s disadvantage, (p2) gains nothing from causing (p1) the harm of defecting and it seems to me that a moral argument could easily be made that states (p2) must cooperate. This doesn't work for the traditional prisoner's dilemma because once (p1) defects (p2) stands more to gain from defecting then cooperating.