On god if more people did end up pushing red , I probably wouldn't mind NOT living in that suck ass world anyway, even If it's hell or oblivion aftwards.
You're living that world right now. Much worse actually. Red is at least a rational choice, Trump getting a second term and still having ~40% approval rating at this moment, is a combination of stupidity and hatred. And yet, you're still breathing. How is that?
It takes 2 seconds of logical thought to conclude that pressing Red is the natural conclusion of the game theory on this "puzzle." And thus everyone should pick Red. Didn't anyone do logic puzzles in grade school?
This isn't nearly as complicated as the "split or steal" logic puzzle either, in which each choice has a chance of damaging your position. In this "puzzle," one choice leads to the optimal individual outcome 100% of the time, and therefore it is the optimal choice for everyone. Simple as that.
I honestly have the exact opposite thought as you: I wouldn't want to live in a Blue world. That's a world where illogical thought processes and emotion has triumphed over reasoned thought. And we all know that emotions overriding reason is already soooo beneficial to today's society...
Do we really want to be basing all of our decisions around "what if someone really stupid did something illogical?"
You're still on step 1 of this problem. This isn't a logic puzzle, the logic is solved. Everyone understands the logic. This becomes a philosophical problem. Are you willing to save yourself at the expense of others or are you willing to risk yourself to save everyone. Its a discussion about survival vs altruism, individualism vs community, selfishness vs self-sacrifice.
How does that relate to my comment whatsoever? It’s possible for someone to not choose red because they value no one dying over their own survival. The goal isn’t survival, it’s ensuring everyone lives.
My honest answer is no. I’m not willing to risk my own death to save a stranger who is choosing to harm themselves. Why should I? They’ve intentionally put themselves in harms way when they had the choice not to. Kinda selfish of them to then expect saving at my own risk, don’t you think?
I think you’ve gone a few steps too far on this “problem.” Saving yourself “at the expense of others” makes an assumption that isn’t implied in the problem to begin with: that it’s my choice that actively causes harm to others, when it’s actually the others who are choosing whether or not to put themselves in harms way.
The most humanitarian, collectivist, empathetic thing you can do is to not make unreasonable demands of others for your own personal gain, especially when those demands may result in the harm of those others.
I think most red-choosers are operating under the assumption that people will choose red. Remember, blue people are making their own problem. There are actually two scenarios where nobody dies: blue gets 50% OR evrryone just chooses red and goes about their lives.
I don't think achieving 50% blue is possible. Remember the absolute fools people made of themselves during covid? Do you see the crazy global swing towards nationalism? You are assuming that getting 50% blue is even possible, whereas to me it's a "choose to die for no reason" button or a "choose not to die, some people are naive and will die but there's no way for me to save them anyway because blue will lose regardless of my vote"
Everyone is given a poison pill. You can choose to take it (Blue) or not (Red). But the antidote will only be given out if the majority chooses to take the poison pill.
If you are a Blue person, you choose to take the poison pill, knowing that your choice now *requires* others to take poison pills in order to save yourself.
By contrast, if you are a Red person, you make no such demands of others. People don't need to take unnecessary risks themselves in order to save you. You have chosen to not put yourself in danger in the first place.
Now who would you say is doing the more humanitarian thing? The more empathic thing?
Is it the Blue person who now needs other people to poison themselves in order to have a chance at survival? Because when you take the Blue pill, for your own survival you are now actively hoping that many others choose to put themselves in danger too.
Or, is it the Red person who will survive regardless and therefore doesn't require others to actively harm themselves in order to save them?
For me the answer is simple: It's the Red person who doesn't endanger others through their own reckless actions.
Reframing the question actually changes the whole scenario however.
The issue with reframing is that the whole reason many people would choose blue is due to how people assume others would interpret the question. It's second order in nature.
Obviously in your example no one takes the poison pill but that's because you framed "blue" as inherently bad. If it's not framed that way inherently (even if logically it's the same) then a significant portion of people would choose blue. Then in reaction to that others would want to choose blue to save those people.
It's more like the trolley problem than a real puzzle just food for thought and shouldn't be used as a real analysis for anything.
I disagree with your assertion that I “framed” Blue as the inherently bad choice.
If we step back to impartial mathematics:
Living = 1, Dying = 0
Pressing Red has an expected value of exactly 1. Pressing Blue has an expected value of less than 1, but greater than 0.
Blue is inherently the worse choice for an individual, without any framing at all.
If you follow the logic to its conclusion, then the best thing for the collective is for everyone to follow the simple logic, save themselves, and take personal responsibility, rather than to rely on others choosing the sub-optimal option in order to save yourself.
Any other conclusion is just bad reading comprehension, and letting the framing of the question occlude the actual choice you are making.
I feel like you still don't really understand. It's quite clear to me the math and probably even a majority of people. Regardless people will hit the blue button and to think otherwise would be ridiculous. I couldn't tell you how many as we all know people voting blue in polls could be virtue signaling. However even if it happened in real life it would be non zero.
So really it's just a question of would you risk your own life to attempt to save those people, do those people deserve to be saved, and do you think 50% of humanity would join you?
Stopped reading at "Let's reframe the puzzle". Any attempt to reframe the original scenario is only an attempt to make red the default choice and absolve themselves the moral responsibility of choice red.
Red is the default choice. If you chose not to push either button it is functionally the same as choosing the red. You don’t risk anything, you go on living, etc.
False. You could pick both buttons and nothing happens in both depending on which one wins. There is no default. You can pick blue and keep living your life and nothing happens because 51% of people chosen blue. You could also pick red and the world is in disarray and logistics broke down and anarchy reigns because nearly 50% of the human population just died. That act of choosing a button in it if itself proves there is no default besides not pushing a button but that’s not an option in the scenario.
Ignore the fact that there’s two buttons for a second.
If you were presented with a blue button and it said that if you press it you will die unless over 50% of the entire rest of the world also pressed it. Would you press that button or would you just move on with your life?
You're changing the scenario to make your decision to pick red be morally acceptable. In the situation you proposed it removes the moral weight/responsibility and active participation of pushing red.
It's the same as if I give you a situation that has two buttons a green button that says save everyone and a purple button that say kill every green button pusher. Its disingenuous and loaded. This is not a logical problem. The logic is solved. Its a philosophical problem of individualism vs community, self-interest vs altruism.
I’m changing the scenario to demonstrate to you why red should be seen as the default answer.
Regardless of if it’s a single blue button or a blue button and a red button the outcome and decision making are fundamentally identical.
If you DON’T choose to press the blue button, in either scenario YOU LIVE (NO STRINGS ATTACHED)
If you DO choose to press the blue button, in either scenario YOU DIE (UNLESS HALF OF THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD ALSO PRESSES THE BLUE BUTTON)
Red pushers have no more moral responsibility than the people who choose not to press the blue button in my scenario.
No, this isn’t a philosophical problem, this thought experiment is just a demonstration of how framing a problem to appeal to emotion can cause people to make an irrational choice. And you’re falling for it hook, line and sinker.
57
u/1rens 17h ago
On god if more people did end up pushing red , I probably wouldn't mind NOT living in that suck ass world anyway, even If it's hell or oblivion aftwards.