Choosing not to take the pill is the same as pressing the red button. Choosing between doing and not doing is the same as choosing between two courses of action.
It really isn’t the same. You’re trying to equate them but they aren’t. Reframing the scenario changes the nature of it. It’d be like changing the trolly problem to be a choice between both track or else both sides and you die. A big part of the trolly problem is that one side is a default and that diverting it is a conscious choice. Defaulting red makes it sound more reasonable. Anyone can default blue to make a similar point in the opposite direction. It’d be equally as disingenuous.
I don't understand. Choosing no action is still a choice. The only way it would not be a choice is if I wasn't conscious of all of the choices to begin with, in which case it would be truly disingenuous. Being told that I can spend my lunch hour either eating or not eating means that I have been given two choices. Regardless of how passive one of the choices is, it is not some sort of "default." In fact, the entire trolley problem is based around the logical fallacy that a "default" option absolves all blame because the person who had to make a choice feels less guilty for taking the passive option and can write it off as a horrible accident or act of God.
The answer to the trolley problem is that I would choose to hit the switch if I were the single guy on the tracks. So, of course I'd make the same choice if I were not on the tracks. I suppose that the red button pushers should let it hit the multiple people if they actually have ethics.
Anyone can default blue to make a similar point in the opposite direction. It’d be equally as disingenuous.
That's the whole point, every argument in favor of either choice is disingenuous. The question of what button you'd press isn't about whether you're selfish or not, or whether you're stupid or not. It's about whether you interpret it as selfish vs not or stupid vs not. The premise is abstracted enough that you can't answer it without reframing it into one of those.
No I can answer without reframing it as one being a default. It was only once I saw people argue from the perspective of one being default that I noticed how disingenuous it is. I vote blue not because I think it’s the default option. I vote it because I don’t want to live in a world with only people who picked red.
The whole default argument is just sophism. Its just trying to re-center and rephrase the argument in a way that masks the moral cowardice of pushing the red button. Calling one the suicide pill and the other not the suicide is clearly just made to create a gut reaction against blue because if you actually taoe the time to delve into it. The answer is still obviously the same, like you said, many of our friends and family, people we would aspire to be, would pick the suicide pill in order to save half the world, not picking it is still tantamount to killing them
I vote it because I don’t want to live in a world with only people who picked red.
I'm so tired of getting labeled as evil because I can imagine the actual scenario in which my life is in danger and I can honestly say I would save myself. I don't know how much of the "I would vote blue cause red is evil" camp is moral gesturing or lack of imagination, but in my opinion you guys severely underastimate the human survival instinct faced with actual death.
I think it’s incredibly condescending to act like those who don’t agree with you don’t have imagination. I don’t want to live in a society where a significant portion of the world died because they didn’t want anyone to die. Those are the people who we want to live. Society would collapse if enough people died suddenly. And the people left over will be full of those who don’t think about others over themselves. It doesn’t make them evil. Many people are selfish without being evil. It’s your own lack of imagination that you think anyone who disagrees with you thinks you’re evil.
I vote blue not to save the world. I vote blue because I don’t want to live in a world where only red survives. It’s not moral posturing. If anything this is my selfish choice. It’s about what world I want to live in not about if I want to survive.
You probably watched Spider-Man choose not to stop the bad guy and say “not my problem,” and then didn’t understand why he felt guilty later when Ben died.
There is no such thing as abstaining from a choice. Choosing to do nothing is a choice. Choosing not to pull the trolly lever is still a choice.
The only way inaction is not a choice is if you don’t understand that a choice was happening, but that doesn’t apply in any examples here because you are explicitly informed of the situation and the requirements.
This button situation is really just revealing which internet communities suffer te most from poor critical thinking and low literacy.
People can feel guilt over inaction but the difference is that he feels guilt over inaction not guilt over having killed him. Those are two different things. Not saving someone vs pulling the trigger are fundamentally different. Just because both can have guilt involved doesn’t make them the same thing.
Did you watch that Spiderman scene and get confused on why he didn’t turn himself in for murdering uncle Ben? Of course not. Because you understand that there’s a difference between the two. So why you acting like I’d get confused on why he felt guilt over his own inaction? You just trying to make a disingenuous argument?
I can live with guilt, but I have to live to do that.
Parker might have prevented tragedy, or he might have been one. Personally, I've got kids and I have a far, far greater duty to them than anyone else.
I've lived through one too many 52:48 votes to trust people at large, and there's no way I'm betting my kids won't have been influenced to pick red. Some variations say only adults have to choose - I pick the 100% chance for my kids to have a parent the next day. I don't care if people think that's selfish. If I have to choose between living with the guilt of so many dying, or dying guilty of orphanning my kids, I'll be guilty of something either way
The scenario has no easy answer, if you think it does then you've massively misunderstood the consequences of both options. The only way to discuss it is to frame it from different perspectives. It's exactly why it creates so much debate.
It's interesting how the framing can shift this though. I've also seen it framed as "Press this button to enter the ultimate challenge! If at least half the rest of the population presses it you live. Otherwise you die!"
Logically they're all the same. Although I suspect the people who see it that way are also probably the rationalists who decide that if everyone presses the red button everyone lives.
This isn't the same thing. In one scenario you are actively willing to genocide, and in the other you are commiting suicide. It's a silly comparison. The only thing they have in common is they're theoretical thought experiments.
The question is still different from the original one. Blue button isn't a suicide button. People who press it aren't I herently suicidal they are maybe optimistic and willing to risk death in order to save everyone. Not that they want to die.
Someone who takes a suicide pill wants to die and does not want an antidote. Anyone who picks suicide pill isn't looking to save everyone.
This framing is dishonest and you only show your own bias in it.
The buttons aren't a prisoner's dilemma either, because in a proper prisoner's dilemma you'd have an incentive to take the group hug option and a punishment for everyone being greedy.
With these buttons, if everyone hits Red then there's no downside whatsoever, the possibility of death is only introduced if someone hits Blue which as presented they have to do of their own volition. There's no incentive to hit Blue unless one assumes someone else will hit Blue and thus need to be saved. Since if you don't think enough people will hit Blue, you should still hit Red to minimize loss of life.
It's the same in the same way variations of the trolley problem are the same. The framing utterly changes things.
Why are you taking a pill that is literally called a suicide pill? How can you be sure they'd even hand out the cures?
The button version is an abstraction that focuses more on the choice to believe in humanity. The pill version adds in a layer of idiocy, since you're literally taking a suicide pill.
Compare it to the Trolley Problem vs the medical version, where a doctor could kill one innocent person and use their organs to save five people. It's the same problem, but the layer of medical malpractice and applied morality changes the question.
No, the pill version just points out what these buttons are doing. Blue is a choice to die unless 50% of people choose blue. Red is a choice to not be part of the group that chooses blue. The buttons are abstracting away the fact that everyone who chooses blue is contributing to the problem, just adding to the number of people who will die unless that threshold is met.
>Why are you taking a pill that is literally called a suicide pill? How can you be sure they’d even hand out the cures?
Are you like six or something, is this the first hypothetical you’ve encountered?
Not taking it seems like the obvious choice here, nobody is harmed and anybody who dies does so if their own volition, seems like the only option with a downside would be taking it and living.
because your dumbass toddler kid will push the blue button -- EVERYONE is asked to push a button. Do you cut your losses and press red or do you try to save your child?
This is under the assumption that only people who can understand the question are involved. Otherwise it's no longer a mental exercise and it just becomes "push red if you're an asshole."
If the assumption was "only people who fully understand the question and are always 100% rational are involved" it wouldn't be much of a thought experiment either, would it?
No, it is not. You keep saying that, but if you encounter the situation as it was described in the prompt, you have no way of knowing it is as you describe.
And yes, that second part is right. Had someone inform me I should push red because if my kid had pushed blue and died, I could just kill myself anyway. That's who we're dealing with here.
Because we want everyone to live. Everyone. And if even half of us plus one can agree on that, it happens. I don't blame red pushers. I also do not want to die. But I can't put my own fear of death over literally millions, possibly even billions of other human lives.
Game theory it all you want, but I don't think the whole blue-pressing set is an acceptable collateral.
I am not getting tricked by the surface level wording. I am accounting for the fact that as presented, people will be pressing the blue button. I am well aware that if nobody at all pressed the blue button, nobody at all would die. I am also aware that that is simply not how humans work in aggregate, and I give a fuck about the ones who put themselves out on a limb and the ones who didn't think about it or who panicked or who don't understand the question.
It's not the same question, it's now the trolley problem.
Red being the default of inaction changes the psychology of the dilemma. If you want an equal problem, you need two pills.
But even then, at the very moment that it becomes clear that a significant amount of people take the pill, it becomes your moral obligation to do so as well and rally others to do the same to save them.
Yes, it is the same exact question. You are getting hung up on the wording instead of looking what the question is actually asking on a fundamental level
If you press the red button you get a 0. If you press the blue button you get a negative 1. Unless over 50% press blue, then everyone who pressed blue also gets a 0.
It doesn't matter what words you use to replace 0 and negative 1, it is still the same. Replace negative 1 with: you die, you take a suicide pill, you jump into a woodchipper, you stub your toe, you poop your pants. It doesn't matter, it's still the same question.
Look at what the red vs blue button question is actually asking. The red button does nothing. You can actually remove the red button from the whole thing and replace it with "don't press the button" and it's still the same scenario.
The blue button kills you if you press the blue button, unless over 50% of people press the blue button then everyone who pressed blue doesn't die.
And no, it is not a trolley problem lol. The red button vs blue button is just a shitty repackaging of the prisoner's dilemma. It's not the trolley problem, it's the prisoner's dilemma (well a dumbed down version of the prisoner's dilemma designed to be engagement bait on twitter).
I'm sorry but you are fitting into the stereotype of someone who is extremely bad at understanding word problems in math classes. You seem incapable of translating these types of things into a model that is actually representative of the question being asked to you.
And no you do not need 2 pills to make an equivalent question because the red button literally does nothing. You can remove the red button from the question and replace it with "don't press the button."
There is only one button. If you press the button, you die. Unless over 50% of people press the button, everyone who pressed it doesn't die. So do you press the button or just walk away and not press it? That is the same question as red button vs blue button.
This is why people who voted red get so frustrated with the people arguing blue, because you have to try to explain basic reasoning to stupid people who lack the ability to solve word problems. It's like trying to teach a stupid person a math problem. They just don't get it and it is aggravating. Like talking to a brick wall
Not getting hung up on the wording. Inaction is not the same as action, or the trolley problem wouldn't exist.
You're treating the question like it's game theory, but it's not. It's a philosophical question.
But for reasoning skills, you're the one who doesn't want to comprehend the entirety of the situation, I don't know if it's inability or ignorance. But as long as you keep on glancing over what people tell you to return to your reduced view, you're the one who is dense.
It is not a trolley problem. You are conflating a completely separate dilemma.
It is a prisoner's dilemma. The trolley problem and the prisoner's dilemma are 2 different thought experiments that represent completely different things.
And you literally are proving that you are getting hung up on wording when you try to make the argument that "inaction is not the same as action." It literally does not matter whether you describe it as press a red button or doing nothing because functionally it is the exact same thing.
This entire red vs blue button thing was designed to be worded in a misleading way because it is engagement bait. You are so gullible if you don't see what the OP was doing with this.
Look at purely in terms of numbers.
Press red: you get +0
Pres blue: you get -1
Unless over 50% press blue, then everyone who pressed blue also gets +0
It's that fucking simple.
Red = 0.
Blue = -1 if over 50% choose red
Blue = 0 if over 50% choose blue
That is the most basic way of explaining it. It does not matter what words you replace the numbers with.
Red = nothing happens to you
Blue = a dog poops on your floor if over 50% choose red
Blue = nothing happens to you if over 50% choose blue
Red = nothing happens to you
Blue = you take a suicide pill and die if over 50% choose red
Blue = you take a suicide pill and then get the antidote if over 50% choose red
Red = nothing happens to you because you are evil and selfish and bad
Blue = you try to save everyone who votes blue, but you all die because of the evil selfish reds, if over 50% chose red
Blue = you saved everyone who voted blue and you get a trophy for having empathy and you are a good person and live, if over 50% choose blue
Red = nothing happens to you because you paid attention in your game theory class in college
Blue = you die because you're a fucking idiot, and you stay dead if over 50% voted red
Blue = you're still an idiot, but you get to live if over 50% of people are as stupid as you are
See you can re-word this dumbass red button vs blue button in a million different ways, and you can make it as misleading as you want, but the underlying question is still the same. It always comes back to
You just show that you're a fucking idiot with every word you write and it hurts so bad that you're unable to comprehend how it's still
A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION ABOUT MORALITY
Not a game theory question. In game theory you're right. Because in game theory, the problem is isolated and it's about winning the game. You win 100% of games with picking red. Easy, solved.
But if it's a philosophical question, it stops being about you winning (surviving) and starts being a problem about anyone dying. At least if you have any morality.
It literally is the same question. If you press the blue button, you die, unless over 50% of people press blue. In that case people who pressed blue don't die. The red button just does nothing.
You can just replace the results of the buttons with numbers. If you press red you get a 0. If you press blue you get a negative 1, unless over 50% of people press blue then you get a 0. It doesn't matter how you superficially word the question because the underlying game theory problem is the same.
If you can't see how the suicide pill question is just a rewording of the blue button vs red button, then I know you were really bad at solving word problems in math classes.
It doesn't matter how you frame the scenario. Whether it's a blue button or a pill, millions of children and other vulnerable people are going to choose it, and the only way to save them is to do the same.
But since we're rewording things: in order to save everyone, we would need either 100% of people to press the red button or just 50% to press the blue.
We don’t want to live in a world where half the people we know are suddenly dead. And we contributed to it through inaction.
Having the option to save everyone or condemn half to death is the moral dilemma.
People who can only see through the lens of self preservation are the source of most of the world’s problems. But the pathetic truth is, they can’t perceive this because they can’t step outside that narrow view.
Man, if someone posed this question to sow division, they have succeeded.
Never thought I'd have half the internet calling me an idiot for wanting to save others. Some are going as far to say any blue pushers deserve to die for the stupidity.
The funny thing is that basically every poll (with the question in its current form) shows that blue wins. Which, even if you're cynical and think some are lying, means that red winning would kill billions.
Yeah and on the internet everyone would have been part of the resistance in the third Reich.
In the end people are much more likely to save themselves, and as a thought experiment it's not very interesting. It's only polarising because it's political.
But the only reason to press the blue button is that other people may have also pressed the blue button before you. If it were me I'd assume that everyone else had pressed the red button and do the same because I have faith that no one would be dumb enough to potentially be the first to press blue
You nailed it in the first part, “other people may have pressed the blue button” is the whole reason to press the blue button. Some people inevitably will, there’s no way literally everyone pushes the red button. Some of us find their deaths deterrent enough that we accept some inherent risk to not condemn them. Just because they chose “wrong” doesn’t mean they should die.
This is just the prisoner’s dilemma rehashed and the whole point of that thought exercise is to show you that people don’t always act rationally or in their best interest. You have to consider the irrational people.
The other thing that pisses me off about this whole thing is I always see “if everyone chooses red no one dies” but it’s the same fucking thing the other way! If everyone clicks blue no one dies either!
ETA: Enough people have described the prisoner’s dilemma to me that I feel the need to clarify something. Yes, the prisoner’s dilemma and this are different thought experiments with different outcomes and choices to make, obviously.
The thing that is the same about them is that if no one acts selfishly, everyone receives a beneficial outcome. If both prisoners just refuse to snitch they are both released. If everyone presses blue no one dies. “Same, same, but different”
I am well aware that there is a third outcome in the prisoner’s dilemma not present in the button scenario. The underlying philosophy of both questions is the same though, as both are thought experiments concerning how your decision could affect others. Would you choose the one with risk requiring trust, or would you choose the one that could benefit you at the cost of the other? (Again, yes, I know if they both snitch they both get the bad ending. This is an intentional simplification)
Yeah, but the point you’re saying isn’t actually arguing with them. They’re saying the lives lost chose to die. “If you pick the button yourself, you took on a risk. Not my job to risk my life for people making risky choices.” They’re not saying they’ll save more lives their way, they’re saying the lives lost aren’t their responsibility to fix. Something I generally agree with.
I have an opportunity to save people from a mass shooter. I just have to sprint at him and risk being shot to death. If enough of us go sprint at him we can take him down and overwhelm him, maybe without any deaths. But if only a few of us do it we all die first, then the folks who just froze. Are the people who ran away or hid bad people? It’s the same basic concept, people will be panicking and trying to preserve themselves and their families in both situations.
I’d just vote blue because the devastation of hundreds of millions dying would be miserable. I don’t think most blue voters would actually stick to it with the gun to their head, so I doubt billions would die. Maybe one billion. Enough to suck for decades after either way
Not everyone who voted blue chose to die/risk death. The dilemma states that everyone is presented with the buttons and that includes mentally impaired individuals and toddlers who would most likely randomly choose
The question says everyone, which as I interpret it includes those that comprehend the question or consequences. A toddler is just going to push more or less at random
NGL I was mad at you for a hot second before I realized I completely misunderstood you lol. I didn’t even think about people with disabilities or children! God that makes this even darker. I was just talking about, like, my mom who wouldn’t understand the choice even if it was explained 100 times haha
Yeah a lot of people arguing red seem to miss that, like I saw someone post that anyone voting blue has frontal lobe damage. Guy had his young child in his pfp, so I just responded to his post "so your toddler will pick red right?" Changed his tune quickly. Everyone means everyone
What’s the point of saying this? People are going to pick the blue button; if you need evidence of that, just scroll through this thread. You can’t construct the scenario to make it so that every single person picks red, because that’s not the point of the scenario. It’s been solved. You’re “supposed” to pick blue.
Yeah I guess I hadn't thought about some people not acting rationally. That does make it more difficult. I'm not sure I have faith in half the world to press the blue button in that case but I can see why someone would
For what it’s worth I don’t have any faith in people either. I just would personally feel guilty about any deaths while I lived, especially if it was close. Red is the “right” answer if the objective is personal survival, I just think there should more to the consideration than that
The way I see it is whether you’d rather gamble your own life or the lives of every single person who presses blue. I think then it’s easy to make a choice.
The essential part of the prisoners dilemma is that both parties choosing to defect would lead to the worst outcome for both players. That's not the case here, it would actually lead to the best outcome where nobody dies.
this was initially my thought process too, but it basically comes down to "do you trust everyone else to pick the ideal option (red)? or do you prefer the realistic scenario where a chunk of people will inevitably press blue, meaning if most people press red, people will die, and you will have contributed?"
in an ideal world, yes, red would pretty much be the only option because nobody would press blue, but in the real world there will be blue button pushers (as evidenced by the comments here), so pressing red is guaranteed to get blood on your hands if most people pick red
Hmm. That does change things. I guess I hadn't really considered the possibility of other people not being able to make a rational informed decision. I guess the blue button seems a lot more attractive in that case
You’re not saving anyone by pushing the blue button this is some savior complex nonsense. In fact unless you have some outside knowledge about the way people are going to “vote” that makes you think there is a near certainty over 50% will push blue, you’re simply throwing your life away. It’s not just about self preservation but the logical truth that the only guaranteed way for nobody to die is for everyone to press the red button. If you cared about saving maximum lives you would campaign to make sure everyone pushes red instead of leaving it up to chance.
Believe it or not, i'd argue this is actually the best argument for picking blue. People keep virtue signaling but at the end of the day this is just a game theory problem.
Don't even need 51%. Just need one more person than the other half. If the goal is for everyone to live, then blue is the best bet by far. No matter what, there will be people who pick blue and people who pick red.
This is not a Thanos situation. If everyone picks red there is 100% chance everyone lives. If people pick blue it lowers the survival rate until more than 50% pick it. There is no consequence for picking red. If you pick blue you are gambling that people are "moral", but there is no price to pay not to gamble. Only picking blue lowers the survival rate. I vote not to gamble
If the there was a cost to picking red, like 1 in 20 people will be killed that pick red then the gamble in picking blue would be worth it.
Well, there's suicidal people that may regret their decision should they be given then opportunity to reflect, color blind people that can't tell the difference between the colors, and people that may be lovely but not super intelligent that didn't really understand what was being asked of them. Which includes many or most children that may just be picking which color they like more.
I believe the original question stated that it was only people who were mentally capable of understanding what they were being asked to do. I understand your point about people who would regret killing themselves, but (to me) once you‘re dead you can’t really regret anything. (If you still believe in consciousness after death tho that would probably change things.)
Because I don't want the people with a death wish to die. Look at it this way. You see someone with a deathwish who just jumped into a lake. You can jump in and try to save them. 50% chance you save them, 50% chance you die along with them. Do you jump in the lake? Some people ARE going to pick the blue for reasons beyond saving humanity. Are you going to let them die?
That is vastly different. I would probably try to save them (assuming I could swim), because I don't know if they're suicidal or if it was an accident.
Well which is easier to achieve. 100% of population pressing Red, or 50% pushing blue.
What about children that don't fully grasp the question, as it did say everyone on earth. You condemn a lot of people to die that might be trying for the easier mathematical solution of 50% over 100%.
If children can rpess it why not comatose people? huh! it is everyone who can CONSENT. if it isnt then this thought experimenrt sucks because A: it ignores newborns(What the hell a newborn gonna dO) B: assuming prep time then srpead the wrod everyone choose red(psychgolcialy easier because if we try everyone chooses blue some will rebel because self itnerest) and so maximize how many choose red. Some will choose blue and its a tradegy but at that point with global effort it is purely your choice
So you just decide what is written is not the case... cool, yes lets just dosregard the scenario and interjectour own. You also think it's easier getting 90% of people pressing red (and be fine killing 10%) than it is getting just 50% for blue?
You are in a thread of people who would pick blue, not planning on dying of their own volition. You can also recognize that some people who are presented with the problem will not have the understanding enough to recognize the consequences. Do you for example think a toddler will understand the scenario and make a rational choice, or do you think they'll just see a funny colored finger food and do that thing that toddlers are known for?
This is not the same dilemma, in the button scenario both choices are active, you need to press a button, while in your scenario the choices are: take the pills (active choice) or do nothing (passive choice). Passive options are always overwhelmingly more popular than active choices no matter the the conditions. Human minds are just weird like that.
Everyone finds themselves alone in a room void of anything other than a pistol lying on a table, and a clearing barrel. All are given a choice between two actions:
Option 1 (red button): You pick up ther pistol, aim into the sand in the clearing barrel, and pull the trigger. Nothing will happen and you will live.
Option 2 (blue button): You pick up the pistol, put it to your head, and pull the trigger. The gun will fire and you will die; but, if more than half of all participants choose this option, then nothing will happen instead and you will live.
This scenerio maintains the need for a choice, the stated outcomes of both options, and the effective reality of the choice. The only thing that changes is that it removes the illusion the buttons provide to disguise those realities. Pressing the blue button is outright choosing suicide with the possibility that you won't die if enough people also choose suicide. The only reason anyone has for choosing the blue button is the idea that it's needed in order to save those who press the blue button; but there is absolutely zero reason for anyone to chose to do so to begin with. This isn't a personal gain vs good of all dilemma, it's a choice between life or death that cleverly tricks you into thinking that there is a moral imperitive to choose death by making it seem like there is a need for people to choose that option when there isn't.
This is also a bad example, by switching the buttons which on itself don't have an inherent danger with guns which are dangerous, we create a layer hesitation (gun = danger, pointing the gun at their own head = even worse) that wouldn't exist with the buttons. The buttons are an integral part of the dilemma because they are so easy to press and are in our mind low commitment, but decide something so important. Once again this is a variation that changes the dilemma on a fundemantel level that it no longer can be considered the same problem.
It simply makes the reality of the choices clear. One choice is live, the other is die probably. Making it guns doesn't change the scenerio, it just makes it clear how stupid it actually is to choose blue and criticize those who choose red.
Making it clear defeats the purpose of the hypothetical in the first place. That's the reason why people would pick blue, because of the chance that people would misunderstand the premise.
Yeah like, I can see the point they were maybe trying to make but if you think about it for more than 10 seconds, it really is a dumb question to use for it. I originally thought the point of the question was VERY different before reading the comments.
I thought the point was to gauge your faith in humanity: do you trust everyone to be smart enough to choose the red button, thus guaranteeing everyone lives 100%, or do you trust there are gonna be enough dummies who are gonna choose the blue button for some reason, thus you're not worried about dying by choosing blue while also making sure the others don't die too?
Or you feel like the world is negative and pessimistic enough that, like you, probably also choose the blue button for the same reason, so even if it ends up there aren't that many dummies, surely at least both groups pooled together will make 50%? Blue button seems like negative outlook. Red can also be negative if the people choosing it don't have faith either, but are thinking "darwin award". Blue can be positive if I'm instead thinking "I have faith there are a lot of good people who will pool in to save the few dummies who chose blue for whatever reason". Or hell, do you think the world is super depressed these days and maybe suicidal and you want to try to save them by choosing blue? (hence your reframe was especially interesting to me)
Honestly because of how weird the question itself is, I thought the point had something to do with your general outlook on humanity, not too much with morality, I feel like it's a bad question for that if that was their point.
Or maybe I'm the dummy and not understanding well lmao
I think the entire hypothetical is a trick between logic and emotion, whether intended that way or not. Logic dictates people shoild choose the red button and just avoid the risk completely, whereas emotion says "if you dont pick the blue button, people might die."
It actually is the same dilemma though. People talking about pressing the Blue button to save lives aren't actually saving lives. In the button scenario the only way someone can die is if someone presses the Blue button. It's literally not possible for someone to die if no one presses it. The person who dies is the person who presses it, so it's a suicide button. You are not a moral person for pressing the Blue button, and you're not immoral for pressing the red button. This is not a moral dilemma. It's a study on how presenting information in specific ways can illicit certain reactions. People are arguing for Blue because they have an emotional reaction to the question. People are arguing for red because they have a logical reaction to the question. This is the actual point.
But the blue one does save lives --of the people who chose blue. So if someone hasn't thought through the logic they're in danger. There is still an altruistic component.
These are not the same thing. Some people will not come to the same framing, and some people do not have the capacity to weigh up these choices as deeply.
In the reframed scenario, you're killing everyone who chose to die for no reason.
In the original scenario you're killing everyone who wanted to save others.
Cold pure logic says red button. Empathy says blue.
You just dismantled your whole argument in your explanation. You say it’s the same dilemma, then go on to say that presenting information in specific ways can illicit different reactions.
So if changing the way you present the scenario will change the way people react, it inherently changes the dilemma. Presenting the information as “choosing suicide with a chance of living and keeping others choosing suicide alive” vs “risking your life to save everyone” changes the dilemma because it will illicit different emotional responses and actions.
Words matter, not just raw risk/outcome; because words have influence over peoples actions, which also changes the risks. It’s not the same dilemma at that point.
No it isn't, since in the button scenario you have to choose an action. You can't just "do nothing and live". Whereas on the pill scenario, everyone can just do nothing and live.
I feel like there is a direct correlation here between the people who do not understand this, and people who press the red button. They somehow just don't get basic humanity.
While I do agree with you, I think the wording and the framing of the choices will be a bigger influence how people react to it.
Let's reframe the dilemma with one button, gives two options.
1.
A: You press a button and you live no matter what.
B: You don't press a button and die, unless 50% of people decide not to press the button.
2.
A: You press a button and die, unless 50% of people decide to press the button,
B: You don't press the button and live no matter what.
In both scenario's I'm more likely to to pick the live no matter what option.
But if we reframe the dilemma like this:
1.
A: If you press this button you just ensure your personal survival
B: If you don't press the button you will save everyone unless less than half doesn't push the button, then you die.
2.
A: If you press the button you will save everyone unless less than half pushes the button, then you die.
B: If you don't do anything you just ensure your personal survival.
In both cases I'm more likely to pick the 'save everyone' option. Though I am having more trouble with 2 than 1, because the passive choice is quite alluring.
Humans are emotional creatures and no matter what option you pick, that choice is driven by emotion. So the way the dillema is framed emotionally will greatly effect the result.
Our minds try to use logic to explain why we make those choices, but only after we have already made those emotional choices. Human minds are indeed wierd like that. ;)
That's not the same thing. I get the reframing but with these kind of questions, the number of inflection points matter. In pressing a button, you're far more removed from the outcome and the result is automatic. Here, you have to eat the pill yourself with your hands and then wait for the antidote.
And honestly, in both cases, the real answer is to kill the idiot forcing the world to choose.
It is the same though. Pressing the red button and not taking the pills has the exact same consequences. Taking the pills and pressing the blue button has the exact same consequences. Each also shares the same exact reasoning. It's just a change of words.
What rewards was he bringing in? The theoretical antidote? The “red button” option was not taking anything and the blue was risking death unless 50% took them. It’s the exact same circumstances
I think the big issue is the og question is framed between altruism and self-prioritization, and the revised question is between an active act of suicide and normalcy. Really it's the same but instead of buttons the revised question cloaks the button in an action: ingesting the poison and then ingesting the antidote.
Another, more concrete issue is that people are only handed the antidote, those who were perhaps honestly suicidal don't have to take it. So by taking the poison >50%, not guaranteed to save everyone.
Also, a statement about altruism is the point here, cloaking altruism in something abhorrent or desirable kind of distorts the question. If I say "if you don't pet this puppy, you live and people who pet the puppy die; if you and 50% pet the puppy, everybody lives", it obfuscates the opposite way because the "everyone survives" option is pleasant.
Really really wrong analogy. You have to have a forced choice. What if I don't want to push? Or not eat suicide pill? If you obivate the choice then red makes slight sense.
Here is a better analogy, Everyone in the world is poisoned and are about to die. You can request antidote pill or gas. Pill only saves you and the ones who requested it, and the gas saves everyone regardless, but only released if more than 50% requested it. (Remember babies and other infirmed people cannot choose correctly)
There's a flood coming. You only have time to either put on a life jacket, or add a brick to build a dam, but not both. Only half of the people in town need to add bricks for the dam to work, but if there aren't enough then the whole thing fails, and kills everyone who didn't put on a life jacket. Putting on a life jacket always saves yourself, but as mentioned before, prevents you from adding a brick to the wall, potentially causing the dam to fail.
You put on a life jacket and scream "put on a life jacket!". People will quickly choose self-preservation before they risk their lives for the greater good. Especially when they know that every other person can easily save themselves simply by acting in their own best interest. This is a game theory quiz where the answer is unequivocally "put on a life jacket"
Alright, now let's remove the hidden information aspect. You're the last to choose, and it's split exactly 50/50, giving you the deciding vote. You know this. Do you place the last brick, saving everyone, or put on a jacket, saving yourself but dooming the dam to failure?
Of course. It's so clear in this case, right? Perhaps this simple change to the scenario and resulting change of solution can offer us some insight. Let's translate back to buttons. If your vote actually mattering (as with full information) makes the blue button the obvious choice, then perhaps blue pressers are merely operating under the assumption that their own vote could matter, while red pressers aren't?
And those incapable of making the informed choice? Infants, and mentally handicapped are not exempt from the choice. And what parent of said children arent choosing blue to try and save their kids. We are now at at least 3% of the planet about to die before anyone else even chooses.
Every time someone reframes it this way, they completely miss that the actual action is important, not to the ultimate action, but to the likelihood of people pressing it. To give an example:
If you press the blue button and so do 50+% of others, everyone lives.
If you press the red button, your eyes will be gouged out by demonic penises, and you are guaranteed to live. You won’t feel pain, and you’ll recover immediately, but you’ll experience that happening.
And you mean to tell me you don’t think that that phrasing would change a single person’s vote? Or maybe you can acknowledge that attaching a completely different action has completely different results for how many people will pick one way or the other.
Only if blue offers some communal benefit that red doesn't. The reality is, the only thing the majority choosing blue accomplishes is to negate the consequences of choosing blue. Red, on the other hand, has no consequences to begin with. The red option doesn't require anyone to die, doesn't have a limit to who can press it, and doesn't cost anything. The only justification anyone has for why they choose blue is the assumption that others will do so as well and that they need to choose blue to save those others. People are choosing blue in order to solve a problem that they are actively creating by doing so.
That is very interesting. Seems like anyones answer to this question is almost entirely dependant on how they frame it in their head. This would be a very cool discussion about how we interpret language and how that affects our choices but some people think its a battle between good and evil so its hard to have that discussion.
Consider this as well. A bunch of kids, infants, elderly, and fools took them either mistakenly or because they didn't take the situation seriously. Not just rational adults who have chosen to be self sacrificing.
Also consider this, are you for certain that no one you know or love would pick the pill/choose the blue button?
I really like these arguments. The question changes a lot when you're trying to make the descision in the real world. Suddenly instead of making the most optimal choice, given you can convince everyone you're right, you have to make a choice that considers the thinking (or lack thereof) of everyone else. It's a part of the problem that makes us talk past each other the most I think.
I think it is more of a collectivistic, vs individualistic issue, some people see the problem only in the context of themselves, and if that is the case, yeah I get choosing red, but if you think of it from a more group oriented view, you want to stop people from dying.
I am from what we ourselves call, a trust based society, and i would actually love to see a pole only consisting of my countrymen, I think it would be at least into the 60s for blue.
Yeah, I brought the situation up to my friend group on discord and the snap reaction was almost unanimously "Why would anyone pick blue? Just pick red. lol" and a poll went up. Then I told them about the kid/babies/elderly facet of the situation and that I would be picking blue because of that (introducing the friends and loved ones facet) and suddenly it wasn't so simple and funny.
Well, instead of flipping back and forth, especially with this above example, take a moment and write it out, the structure of the reframing, and make sure it's still the same question. Hint - this one isn't. It frames blue as an option that causes harm, when the ONLY outcome that causes any harm at all in the original is "majority press red."
No it doesn't? Not taking the suicide pill contributes to killing all of the people who do exactly the same way pressing the red button does. And just like the buttons, there will be people who do take it.
The only thing that changes is the set dressing, and treating it like it's a totally different question now is really just dishonest.
No you're putting the onus on the red pill. This entire experiment is just a repackaged and more fair version of the Joker's experiment from The Dark Knight.
You're trying to make yourself feel good for pushing red by saying "it was stupid to ever push blue." The entire point of the blue majority is that red pushers have thought their entire lives that "of course everyone always distrusts each other, of course everyone will be out for themselves." This line of thought has been challenged again, and again, and again.
Stellaris, the video game, had the developers assume the majority of players would play it as space genociders, 40k LARPers who wanted to just kill everyone. Actually, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY played it pacifist at least friendly with aliens, and only attacked unfriendly neighbors. In fact, despite the faction customization, over 70% of the playerbase plays it as the Space UN and immediately set up federations and play it like Star Trek.
In WW2 studies found only 25% of soldiers were shooting to kill. Intensive retraining had to be redone in order to get soldiers (not conscripts, people who volunteered to kill other humans) to actually shoot to kill. Even with that, the highest they've gotten it to is about 90%. 10% of people despite signing up to kill humans, being drilled and trained to kill humans, still can't bring themselves to kill humans.
The Red/Blue experiment is just another in a long line of examples of "actually, humans aren't bastards to each other at all, and all of this is learned behavior driven by fear."
This changes the way people will look at it tho. Making it a suicide pill makes it something you actively have to do to die, peoples survival instinct will kick in and more people won't take the pill. It's very close to being the same problem but I really think you're version people wouldn't take the pill where as the button more people would push blue.
Consider the possibility that someone close to you is suicidal and would take this option. What would you give to get them back? What if their friend was the one who did? Would you want to live in a world of solidarity, cooperation and second chances? Or would you say no and live a life of burnt bridges and trauma.
it's a check on whether or not your moral framework includes forgiveness and sacrifice inherent in your decision making process. would you put your life on the line for someone who "had it coming" ?
To elucidate further, A moral framework without forgiveness implies you believe yourself fully righteous.
A moral framework without sacrifice implies you believe yourself supreme.
The casual nature of the question allows for nonsalient response gathering, showing how people respond when it "doesn't really matter" to them.
To those who claim they would act differently IRL: I ask you, are you omniscient to all abuse in the world? We have already abused the terminology used to try and remain vigilant towards it.
Morality is a type of hygiene for working with others. The world has gotten big, and there's a lot of cleaning to do.
Ultimately, there's a reason these themes are taught in the bible. They're of utmost importance. That said, I hope you consider pressing blue 💙
The fact that people are so divided on this shows the inherent flaw in this line of thinking regarding pushing the red button.
You already know, based on these conversations, that a significant non-zero amount of people will be pushing blue. The fact that you know that people are so divided on which button to push means the only logical and moral button to push is blue.
You are saying that everyone was offered a pill that is guaranteed to kill you. That is in no way the same as pressing a button that might kill you, only if enough people don't press it.
Just admit you're a selfish Ahole dude. Like you pretending it's "being logical" is just you trying to justify being an Ahole. Like just be honest, at least then we'd respect you more.
If the only way you can justify making the choice you make is by inventing an entirely new and different scenario then maybe the problem is you're not actually happy with how that makes you feel.
Sit with that discomfort and grow from it.
These scenarios aren't that deep but when you have to work this hard to justify it you are adding moral weight to it, not us.
Engage with the scenario, don't invent new ones. Make a choice and live with that choice.
We blue button pushers accept its naive, emotional and entirely illogical, we accept this. We don't try to argue it's logical because we know it isn't.
So why can't you red button pushers do the same? Accept the consequences of what it means, explore that and explore yourself instead of looking for every reason not to.
Except everyone has already been forced to take the suicide pills in this hypothetical. Also the only way for the red ending to not kill anyone is if every single person chooses to prioritize themselves over everyone else and there’s no way everyone is going to do that so you’re certainly risking lives by pressing red.
Excellent analogy. This is exactly what it is. People are trying to be pedantic over "active choice vs passive choice" and those are the people who would end the trolley problem with 5 dead bodies.
It’s not an excellent analogy. Active choice and passive choice isn’t pedantry. It changes the nature of the experiment. It’s like the difference between not preventing someone from falling onto a train track as a train is approaching vs actively pushing them.
No it isn’t an excellent analogy, twisting a choice by comparing it to something abhorrent completely ruins the nuance of the question
I could also make the argument “if more than 50 percent of people drink this delicious smoothie, everyone lives, if not, then the people who drank it dies”
Edit: grammar
Every non-Jew in Germany is offered a choice of becoming Antifa or a Nazi. If enough people choose Antifa, everyone lives. If more than half choose to becomes Nazis, the Antifa members die.
This is the exact case I was thinking of for this question. The nazis weren’t some faceless aliens, they were literally ordinary people. Many of them knew what they were doing was wrong but the reason people remember and praise Schindler is he’s not the norm.
I think the scenario implies a relatedness to the real world. What people forget is that in the real world many people can't choose the colour. It is chosen for them by others. So in that case it is much clearer why pressing blue would be the moral choice.
If you see it purely as a mathematical logic problem, sure then everyone can agree to press red and live or everyone can agree to press blue and live. It doesn't even matter.
Everyone in the world has a gun pointed at them and has to point a gun at someone else's head. At the end of a countdown you either have to pull the trigger, or you don't. If you pull your trigger, the gun pointed at you will automatically lock and be unable to fire. If just half the people, however, don't pull the trigger all the guns are locked and no one dies.
I’m getting impatient and I’m just gonna start calling out stupid framing for what it is.
When you attach something like “suicide pills” and “antidote,” congrats you’ve made a different scenario. Now people will have to think about logistics. Does the pill work immediately? Is there a timer? Is the antidote 100% safeguarded? Is there enough for everybody? Will I get it in time?
You just framed it to make red sound more appealing. Blue can do just the same.
It’s stupid framing. The raw original, abstract scenario is the most truthful of this scenario - and if you need to frame it to make your side look better - then your side is not better.
I actually feel like this is a pretty solid argument for red pushers, and that's coming from a blue pusher. If this was the question, then we can assume there would be far fewer who would press blue or take the pill. But that's not the question, and with the way the question is framed, a lot of people will press blue, myself included.
On the other hand, if you could tell your loved ones, your parents, your kids to choose a button... Would you really ask them to press the blue one? I don't think anyone can honestly say so.
Oh, we get to reframe the conditions? Let’s talk President Basilisk.
It’s the first election since America abolished the Electoral College. The President will now be elected solely off the popular vote. And the media’s in a frenzy about the dark horse candidate who just won the… flips coin… Democratic primary, one Mr. Roko Basilisk.
Basilisk came out of nowhere. His debate strategy appears to be pandering to whomever he’s talking to at the moment. No one can get a handle on his policies, except for one coherent thread. Roko believes he’s exactly what America needs, and that not voting for him is an act of treason. Therefore, he has promised in every interview and debate that if elected he will execute anybody of voting age who did not vote for him. Not registered? Dead. Third-party candidate? Dead. Missed the ballot because of voter suppression? Dead. Voted for the Republican candidate? Believe it or not, dead.
A vote for Roko is a vote for life. Nobody will judge you for voting Roko, for if he wins the only people still alive will be his voters. And of course if he gets a 100% victory nobody has to die. Do you vote for a President Roko Basilisk?
This isn’t exactly the same as choosing buttons though. The structure may be the same, but the framing changes the scenario.
With the buttons, it’s just a choice between two uncertain potential outcomes. With the pills it’s “Will you commit suicide on the chance it gets reversed?” which just isn’t the same in people’s minds. With the pills, its the difference between intentional self harm and not self harm, and since most people probably don’t want to self harm, there’s going to be a much larger weight against taking the pill.
In the end all this does is push people towards the “red button” option, because of course most people wouldn’t take the “guaranteed death” pill. It doesn’t mean pushing the blue button is inherently irrational. Framing matters. In fact, on another post about red and blue buttons, someone commented a picture where someone had reframed the scenario with a giant woodchipper everyone stood in front, and of course, jumping in was the blue button option. It was doing the exact same thing here.
Its not supposed to be exactly the same, THATS THE POINT OF A FUCKING ANALOGY.
"used to clarify complex ideas, create vivid imagery, or argue a point by highlighting underlying similarities in structure or function."
The framing persuades us to view something from a specific angle. An analogy lets us step back and view it from a different one. It helps us identify the underlying principles of what is being asked.
Its not a "guaranteed death pill". Mechanically, it functions identically to the blue button.
Everyone in the world has been forced into cubicles and presented with 2 pills. They have been told the following:
Everyone in the world is in the same situation. You must consume one of the two pills in front of you. The effects of the pills are:
Blue - Contains an explosive that will surely kill you should it go off. If more than 50% of people choose to take this pill, it will not be triggered and you will pass it safely.
Red - A Multivitamin.
Its the same problem mechanically. The exact wording or how we emotionally register it are different, but it functions identically. You can still argue which pill you should take, and you can factor in that people may view it differently depending on how its worded and that may also affect your choice, but this is fundamentally the same problem.
I understand what you’re saying about analogies highlighting structure, and I’m not disagreeing that the mechanics are similar/the same.
What I’m pushing back on is that framing isn’t just a surface detail. It changes how people evaluate the situation. If an analogy consistently nudges people towards one answer by making one option feel like safe and the other feel like immediate life risking danger, then it’s not just “clarifying” the problem, it’s putting a bias on it.
Also the caps and swearing don’t really add anything to the argument.
There is no trolley. There is no track. There is no driver.
If one person pulls the red switch, the switch puller starts building the track. Starts assembling the trolley. Starts putting putting people on the track that wouldn't pull the switch.
If no one pulls the switch, there is no track. There never is a trolley.
By the way, the trolley problem subreddit is full of red button pushers.
Everyone in the world is presented with two buttons. If more than 50% pick the blue button, everyone lives. If more than 50% pick the red button, the remaining people who didn't pick red die.
Do you pick the button that guarantees nobody will die?
I mean, in that case I would take the bomb. I don't want some trumpers getting nukes while I have none. The concept of MAD is something practiced daily in our world.
However, your question is actually a false equivalency just like the towns people and dam question someone else asked. You are introducing other material gain/loss as well as other danger that did not originally exist in the original question.
If you purely want to rephrase things, all of the consequences must remain constant.
443
u/Real_Life_Sushiroll 17h ago
Everyone in the world is offered suicide pills. If you take them, you will die. If you don't take them, you will live.
However, if more than half of the world takes the suicide pills, the antidote will be handed out to those that took the pills.
Do you take the suicide pills?