Reference no: EM133222786

Imagine the following philosophical scenario: 

Josh and Sydney have been arrested for robbing the Morrocan Savings Bank and is placed in separate isolation cells. Each of them cares more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. "You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent, I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.

You are Josh - what do you do?

- What is your conclusion?

- Analyze your response below your explanation. Complete the analysis by responding to all of the following prompts:

1) How did you validate (was it valid) your reasoning?

2) What premises (supporting evidence) did you put forth?

3) What claims (conclusions) were made?

4) Were your arguments deductive or inductive? Explain.

5) Explain what you chose to do and your reasons for this decision 

Looking at this from a philosophical perspective, I am aware that the best possible option for both individuals is to confess. However, please explain in detail the justification behind that.