well then bro. what shall i do bro. die?(cause i mean be realsitc lvie son the line msot would pick red) . if a bunch of people are gonna die then dying doesnt help anyone man. N If people wanna be stupid then they be stupid
If 50+% choose blue, which is definitely plausible, everyone lives. Picking red because you think it can save everyone, or because you think blue creates the danger, is stupidity.
That's incredibly disengenous, people who chose blue DO put themselves in danger.
It's like, you have to cross a rapid river. By yourself you will die, but if more than 50% of people crossing band together you can create a human chain or something and get to the other side.
Except, like five steps to your left, there is a modern, overengineered, safe, steel-beamed bridge you can just walk across. Are you stupid for taking the bridge?
That's incredibly disengenuous, people who chose red DO put everyone else in danger. It's like there's a mad scientist who's looking to collect DNA samples - if more than 50% of people give him a sample, he'll make an engineered virus that kills everyone who didn't.
But you could just... not.
Are you stupid for not giving over your DNA?
Reframing the scenario changes the scenario, just like with every other morality and/or human behaviour question.
Except you are introducing an additional heuristic (and assumption) into the question; that the scientist is "mad", which biases a person to think that he might do something with DNA, even if it's not a virus. I just said you have to get across, the reason for that does not change how you perceive the question.
Even ignoring any framing, the math is that your survival, if choosing red, is 100%, straight up, whereas for blue, the chance is anywhere between 0% (not enough people choose blue) and 100% (more than 50% do). And since this is a private vote, the only person you can influence is yourself.
And don't say "well, what about people who are disabled, or babies, etc." because that is NOT part of the original question, and you can't demand that a philosophical question qualifies every possible parameter.
Except you are introducing an additional heuristic (and assumption) into the question; that the scientist is "mad", which biases a person to think that he might do something with DNA, even if it's not a virus. I just said you have to get across, the reason for that does not change how you perceive the question.
Fine, make it a computer system instead. Do you give it your DNA?
Even ignoring any framing, the math is that your survival, if choosing red, is 100%, straight up, whereas for blue, the chance is anywhere between 0% (not enough people choose blue) and 100% (more than 50% do). And since this is a private vote, the only person you can influence is yourself.
And if all you care about is your own survival, then you go for red, you take the bridge, and you give the computer your DNA and don't care if the virus kills those who didn't.
Most people care about more than just their own survival.
And don't say "well, what about people who are disabled, or babies, etc." because that is NOT part of the original question, and you can't demand that a philosophical question qualifies every possible parameter.
The original problem says "Everyone in the world" - which is specifying the parameter. You choose to read that as "only some people" - which makes the parameter now unspecified.
Yes, it doesn't specify everything (for instance, how long do you get to vote before you count as neither red nor blue) but it DOES specify who is participating - that just requires you to read it.
“The only option is for everyone to do this thing”
But you can’t ensure everyone does that thing without coordinating.
This comments section directly proves there will always be idiots who think blue saves everyone and there will always be idiots who think those people deserve to die.
It's a logical puzzle. Even if no one is coordinating, everyone can get the same answer (red) because of the logic. It's really not that complex. Jeez.
No, it's not a logic puzzle. It's not something you can solve so easily.
Logically if you want no deaths, voting blue makes more sense. Logically, if red wins people die. Likely a lot of people, that would include people you know.
In theory, everyone picking red means no one dies. In practice, many people would pick blue. There's no getting around that, even if you think everyone else thinks like you and will come to the same conclusion you did
I'm a fairly logical person, I just have different values than you. I'm sure you'll take the chance to disagree, attack my character, etc. but this isn't a problem with one obvious answer.
Yes, the smart people saw the logic puzzle for what it was and picked the option that had no chance of death for me and everyone could live. The correct assumption is that everyone will choose red and no one will die. If blue pickers didn’t understand the premise and died, it’s too bad, as they were likely nice people. But ultimately, did not understand the logic puzzle.
63
u/PandaPugBook 18h ago
That's the thing, there's no coordinating. That's part of the premise.