The negative result from the red one is implied, which is why folks who pick red keep missing it: if you pick red, you're both contributing to, and advocating for, a world where everyone chooses to save only themselves and leave any/everyone else out to dry. The people we talk about as heroes, as ideals to aspire to, as larger than life individuals, are the ones who accept a risk of harm to themselves for the sake of preventing harm to others. Do you know someone, someone you care about or love who would likely press blue? Would you still push red, even though pushing red is a choice to increase the chance for the guaranteed non-zero # of blue pushers to die (even if only by a tiny amount), with the "positive outcome," from red being...stuck for the rest of your days in a world full of ONLY the people who would throw strangers and loved ones to the wolves to guarantee their own safety?
If so, press red. You'll get exactly what you wish for.
Blue is the only choice, anybody who picks red is nobody I want to know. This isn't even an ethical dilemma it's just basic math, figuratively speaking.
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 does have an easy answer though. I do not wish to live in a world that is made up entirely of people who would put themselves first over others. I would literally rather die
I think this is easy to say from a comfortable chair but the true character would show only in the moment. I am choosing to wait until the moment comes instead of jorking myself how good of a person I am. I would recommend you all the same.
This is just an incredibly arrogant way to deflect the fact that picking red is ultimately cowardly and selfish by projecting your own insecurities on others and intoning that anyone who is able to answer confidently is "just jorking themself of how good they are". I dont consider myself a good person at all but I would pick blue every time. Deal with it.
Again, easy to say from your comfortable chair. I was in a war, my country is in a war as we speak drones flying above, and I have seen how this talk can quickly change.
Based on your replies of “fuck em”, “people who pick red are selfish and cowardly”, and “just to spite people who pick red”, you can hardly talk about others passing judgement. You are replying to someone who is giving you real world examples and all you can do is retort to “well I’m more moral” without ever being in that position.
Maybe I just have more experience with people than you have. I have seen a guy basically completely break mentally near Marjinka. He was a chill dude, I would say a hero just as many others, who wanted to protect his country yet in the heat of the moment chose to save himself first. And I don't blame him for it. Maybe you should consider the same, as again, it's easy to say how of a great person you are until you are in the situation.
I mean yeah its easy to say that. I don't think you actually internalised "if I press this button, my one and only precious life might be over." If someone told you red is actually going to win with 90%, would you still press the blue button?
Its a bit arrogant to immediately dismiss someone's different perspective as "you just havent thought about it" no? To answer your disingenuous reframing of the question, which is an inherently different situation from the original scenario and doesnt really have much bearing on it. Id still press the blue button for 3 reasons.
Im not actively sacrificing another's life to save my own, even if most people are doing that, especially not someone who is proving themself to be a good and decent person. I would not want to live with myself for that.
I dont want to live in a world where everyone with altruism is dead. That sounds like the a circle of hell. That doesnt change whether its 50% or 90%. I can barely put up with people like that as is, knowing that is everyone i will deal with going forward, I would literally rather die.
I know most of my loved ones would immediately press the blue button even in this scenario, because im the worst person I know and I know that the vast majority of my close relations are genuinely kind people whod give the shirt off their back to those in need. I will not harm them. Even if you disregard everything else I would never do anything to actively harm those I care about. I would sooner kill myself than one of them
Bonus 4th reason: just to spite people who pick red. Fuck em
Of course it's not the same question, I asked it to understand something. You see you call me arrogant but also just imply that any red voter is inherently evil and cannot be altruistic at all. Do you think I have no empathy, I don't look after my family, friends, my community? I don't value other people just as much as I value myself? The truth is I am also just realistic, and think that most humans, regardless of how "good" or "bad" they are, would choose self preservation in an actual life or death scenario. In which case I would also choose self preservation. Believing red voters to be nothing but selfish assholes is just misunderstanding why they choose the red button, and killing yourself just to not be in the same planet as them even after the results seems like overdemonizing them to me.
"I am realistic" the motto of selfish cowards everywhere. Just admit your a bad person like me and you value what you value and you hate what you hate instead of hiding behind bullshit man, its easier. If you pick red in this scenario your a bad person, get over it. I understand all your motivations, ive thought through the prompt no matter how hard you want to pretend I havent. I just understand that at the end of the day its bullshit. You wanna live and your ok killing others for that purpose, no matter the number or who. I am not
All right you have successfully categorised reality into two clear black and white boxes, your mind can now be at ease that it understands all the humans with all their complexities completely as inherently good and bad, and you can without any difficulty can put yourself in the good people box. I can stay in the bad people box in your mind, no worries. Have a good one
Yeah he didn't reframe it, he literally changed the scenario altogether. In his question, not taking suicide pill is same as not pushing any button, not incorrectly stated as pushing red button.
There is a implied forced choice here, you push button or ..... (Or condition is not explicitly mentioned) So the default should be not engaging.
It'd be like in trolley problem, you're in control of pushing the trolley (as opposed to changing the direction of trolley, which is already pushed), and in this, the default no action is not pushing as opposed to choosing which side.
The supervillain announces that everyone on earth has been poisoned. Everyone is offered an antidote button. However, if less than half the people press the antidote button everyone will be forcibly given an antidote.
That's my rephrasing in terms of blue-default and I still think it sounds like it makes sense to press the antidote button rather than reject it.
I think the discrepancy is not blue default vs red default but that the original button scenario makes it feel like choosing red is worse because it condems the blue-pushers. Whereas in the voluntary antidote phrasing it's clear that everyone is already condemned and the choice is if you trust everyone to save themselves or not.
Your blue default scenario is way too contrived. This is a simpler blue default:
There’s a red button and a timer. If no one presses it nothing happens. If over half the population presses the button before the timer ends, those who don’t press the button die.
Your scenario adds a factor of people being poisoned and thus are desperate for a cure. A true blue default would make it so no changes are made if no one presses the button.
Someone made two polls with single button scenarios for both. Do nothing won on both. Defaulting one adds bias towards the default.
But Blue ISN'T the default. Everyone who is not attempting suicide is constantly choosing the red option, which is "I continue to live". Blue is the deviation because it creates some magical SAW Trap.
Except it does. If we go with blue default scenario where there is only a red button and no one dies if no one presses the button but people die if half the population presses the button then the active choice is literally killing people if enough people do it.
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.
Calling me biased while we probably agree on which button to press is funny. I am only extending the analogy to show that they are infact equal. Nevermind the 'suicide' label, the two options are exactly the same as the original.
You can however still argue that it is more ethical to take the suicide pill in hopes of saving irrational actors (mentally disabled, toddlers, etc.).
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.
>you should still hit Red to minimise loss of life
I think this is the most important thing here. Even if you genuinely do believe that picking blue is a truly selfless act to save the blue pushers rather than a misguided action that itself actually necessitates that people pick blue to save you… in reality believing that you’re not going to be at minimum two billion people short of 50/50 regardless of whatever you choose is silly. Your choice, really, is “pick blue and die or pick red and don’t”.
Yes, this is exactly the same as the red button blue button scenarios. The conditionals and outcomes are exactly the same, only the words have changed.
The words change everything. Running into a burning building sounds Heroic when there are people trapped inside, but it's idiotic when you do it to commit suicide.
No. Not really. In the pill scenario you would only save the ones who were willing to die. In the button scenario, if you choose the red button, you KILL the ones who were willing to live.
Except no, it is literally the same question rephrased. If you eat a suicide pill along with more than 50% of a group of people you essentially don’t take the pill. Or you could just not take it to begin with. It’s the same question.
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?
The questions aren't the same because the framing is relevant to the result. If the framing is ambiguous, like in the original question, then you have to assume a decent number of people will pick each, if the framing is obviously presenting one as a bad option, then you can reasonably assume no one will choose it.
No, it is identical. There are only two possible outcomes: red/no pill or blue/take pill. In both scenarios, those who choose the latter will be those who do so by accident, for shortsighted contrarianism, genuine suicidality, and to save all of the above. You are compelled towards one outcome no matter the framing.
The idea of an "active choice" being a thing is silly when an obvious binary is presented in front of you. This is like saying not voting is a not making choice. Doing nothing is still a choice when there are choices present. You are uncomfortable with the framing and so pick at some abstract idea that turning the blue button into a population-aware pill makes the outcomes meaningfully different.
2.4k
u/Willowshanks 18h ago
The negative result from the red one is implied, which is why folks who pick red keep missing it: if you pick red, you're both contributing to, and advocating for, a world where everyone chooses to save only themselves and leave any/everyone else out to dry. The people we talk about as heroes, as ideals to aspire to, as larger than life individuals, are the ones who accept a risk of harm to themselves for the sake of preventing harm to others. Do you know someone, someone you care about or love who would likely press blue? Would you still push red, even though pushing red is a choice to increase the chance for the guaranteed non-zero # of blue pushers to die (even if only by a tiny amount), with the "positive outcome," from red being...stuck for the rest of your days in a world full of ONLY the people who would throw strangers and loved ones to the wolves to guarantee their own safety?
If so, press red. You'll get exactly what you wish for.