[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that the prisoner's dilemma does not require altruism (though it does);

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I asked my rhetorical question. I was assuming that you didn't think that a cooperating prisoner was being altruistic. But, now I see that you DO think that. I don't. I guess we have different understandings of altruism.

Perhaps I should have stated that I'm referring to an iterated prisoner's dilemma -- where the "tit for tat" strategy is being used. In this way, the prisoners realize or "learn" that they will be happiest if they cooperate and not defect. Thus, their motivation is to help themselves, NOT the other prisoner -- this is why it's not altruism.

[ QUOTE ]
you have not yet pointed out how Utilitarianism does not require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way I just desribed the Prisoner's dilemma not requiring altruism. That is a simpler scenario, and we disagree on that, so I'll stick with that for now.

[ QUOTE ]
PS You did not say whether, by "cooperation", you mean cooperating with the police or with the other prisoner, and that is another unclarity in your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other prisoner. I'm just referencing two people playing a "game". I can describe the scenario in detail if you wish, but it's a common problem, so I thought most people would be familiar with it.