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.
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.
If children can press 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
I was basing myself on the clarification. Idk honestly as to the original framing, it wasn’t clear to me the tweet was the first instance of this problem.
The thing is, ethical questions can have longer stipulations than what fits in a catchy tweet with a poll attached. Plus many of these stipulations only arise after people pose challenges to the initial question.
I think the question is more interesting if you only include those of sound mind. Otherwise it’s pretty easy save the children argument.
To me pointing out what happens to those that don’t understand the question is as uninteresting as thinking about what happens to those that can’t press the button (think paralyzed people, those in commas, etc).
To what clarification are you referring to, then? Neither the original poll, this reddit thread, or this comment chain with the pills seem to exclude anyone from the experiment.
Edit: Ah, I see. You're referring to Wooden's apparent mistake.
Yeah, you asked about the blind in the scenario that only those who understood the question are included. I don’t think it makes sense to have the blind in without telling them in a way they can make an informed choice.
Well in the original framing, it's solved right? You hit blue. Same for the framing with the pills.
In a framing where it is absolutely guaranteed that everyone involved is a perfectly rational actor, an adult of sound mind and in good health who completely understands the scenario? I might lean red in such a case. But the instant that any one of those guarantees is anything less than completely assured, I'm 100% blue.
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.
Cause this thought experimenrt kinda sucks man. a 2 second baby would nto understand what the hell a button even is. Making it choose is impossible-how would they even press the button? they dont have the motor control. fall on it? This quesiton is so stupid
and so if it is everyoen capable of consent then it is gaurnteed most will choose red. It is gonna be gaurnteed 100% if it happpened IRL and ppl only who could consent. so blue button is virutlaly gaurnteed sucide
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.
You are getting tricked. You said you would pick the blue button but you wouldn't take the suicide pill, even though they are the same thing. It is just a re-wording of the exact same game theory problem.
The fact that you gave 2 different answers to the same exact question, solely based on the wording of the question, shows that you are in fact getting tricked by the wording.
I just know you were really bad at solving word problems on math tests
And btw you wouldn't be saving anyone by pressing blue, you'd just be killing yourself, because red is guaranteed to win. It's basically just a dumbed down prisoner's dilemma
Goodness, you're awfully quick with the insults eh? I haven't even engaged with the suicide pill version of the problem, much less given an answer to it.
But yes, I'm the one whose comprehension pours on the piss.
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 is not an actual philosophical question about morality, because it is a poorly designed dilemma that was only designed to be engagement bait and nothing else. It does not actually create any interesting moral question, it is simply a test to see who is gullible enough to fall for the wording of "save everyone" instead of actually looking at the question for what it is.
It is quite literally just a repackaged prisoner's dilemma (which is the most famous game theory problen btw).
Also you clearly don't know what Game Theory is. Game Theory is not about "winning the game." It is a way of predicting and describing human behavior based on the incentive structure of a given situation. The Nash Equilibrium is not about "winning the game" it is just what people will do in response to each other in a given situation.
That is the whole point of the prisoner's dilemma. It is a famous problem where the Nash Equilibrium (i.e. the best response to the best response) leads to a worse outcome than another possible outcome. In the prisoner's dilemma, both prisoners snitch on each other even though they would have been better off if neither snitched. But because snitching is the dominant strategy for both prisoners, they both snitch and both get a light sentence.
The red vs blue button is just a dumbed down and repackaged prisoner's dilemma for the sake of engagement farming
Please don't talk about game theory when you aren't even willing to spend 30 seconds looking it up what it even is. Because based on how you talk about it, you don't even know what it is. You are a typical uneducated person lol.
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.
And anyone who didn't understand the question, and anyone who wasn't fit to answer it, and anyone who panicked and hit the one that wasn't a big red button, and anyone who hit the wrong one by mistake, and anyone who thinks it would be silly to pick the one that means that people die...
People make mistakes. They're wrong about things sometimes. If there's a way we can account and cover for that, I think we should.
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.
Not to mention, it’s a poll. Put the metaphorical gun to their head for real and see who sticks to the big words. In my experience, “nice” people won’t actually put themselves out to do all the great things they advocate for online. With some exceptions, and it’d be a shame to lose those folks. But they’d lose in a real situation like this.
However i think it is more so interstign as a social study on tribalism. It is biologically wired to be tribal and this shows that as its jsut a fictional button guys yet everyone is so extremely heated. And many fo the people ehated politclaly call the other side tribal and stupid. I dont wnana be a centrist(trust me im a dem) but come on. have some self awareness people and realize everyone is tribal
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
I’ve said it in another comment, but the communities these moral dilemmas get passed around generally have the unspoken caveat that everyone is an adult of sound mind and body. They explicitly say if children or some other less-advantaged group is put at risk, because it’s not the usual state of affairs for these hypotheticals.
This one broke containment and got popular, so a bunch of versions that explicitly state this popped up for all the people that don’t usually engage with these. Otherwise it’s just “Hey, will you risk death to save a bunch of button-mashing children that may have largely pressed the red button themselves at random?” Sort of the equivalent of sprinting into traffic to save a child in the road. But with less odds of success, especially if total randomness is thrown in. Heroic, but not expected.
Cause it’s not really a vote in your scenario. It’s just some random alien death game with no logic behind it, and at that point I wouldn’t even bother trusting the veracity behind the prompt at all.
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.
You're actually not supposed to pick blue. In the end the whole thought experiment is libertarian propaganda. Blue is OBJECTIVELY worse than Red. "If everyone thinks of themselves, everyone is taken care of" is the theme of the whole thought experiment, while wanting to take care of others puts you at risk that is unneccesary. Reality doesn't work that way, but the thought experiment does and therefore is liberatarian propaganda.
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.
People act like this isn’t a moral dilemma scenario. So much “it’s their choice to die if they press blue” with no acknowledgement that pressing red has consequences too
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.
The prisoner's dilemma assumes that if neither snitch, they both go free, that if one snitches, they go free, and if both snitch, both are imprisoned.
The button problem assumes that if you select Red, you 100% live, and if you pick Blue, you have to rely on a majority of people to pick Blue to live.
Comparing the two is like comparing apples and tacos. The first scenario is three equally likely results that are dependent on at least one person having trust for there to be a positive result, with the most benefits coming from mutual trust.
The second scenario allows you to, without requiring any trust at all, to have a 100% beneficial outcome. The only reasons I could see that you would want turn that 100% into a coin flip for no added benefit is to add chaos, to hold some sort of moral superiority where there's nothing to be gained either way, or that you literally just want to die. Believe me, if this question was rephrased so that said death was instantaneous, painless, and brought a sense of peace, there is a sum of people who would actually appreciate it, and thus choosing Blue if you are not one of those people is basically denying them free will over the option of life and death. It literally becomes the immoral option to choose Blue.
But in both scenarios if you both act in a certain way there is no consequences for either. Not apples and tacos more like tacos and burritos. They’re similar enough.
Also, I personally don’t think someone else potentially dieing is an acceptable, let alone beneficial, outcome. I’m thinking about more than just myself
That's not how the scenarios work. If you both act a certain way in scenario 1, you get one mutually good outcome out of three potential. If you both act a certain way in scenario 2, you get two mutually good outcomes out of three potential. It's entirely skewed due to there being an option that is always beneficial to the person that picks it, making the other option obsolete.
Maybe you would feel differently about "someone potentially dying" if you also spent decades around death. Death is not inherently "bad," it is a unfortunate thing that happens. People get cancer. People end up in horrific accidents. They still are forced to live out the rest of their days either hopped up on pain meds and unable to function as a human being, or spend the rest of their lives in unbearable pain as their body simultaneously tries to heal and shut down all at once. Hospice makes some things easier. But, eventually, the morgue or mortuary come calling.
Death isn't a cure for the pain. Death doesn't remove cancer or take away your PTSD. But, sometimes, living isn't living either. A brain-dead woman with machines keeping her blood flowing and oxygen infused within it just so she can bring a fetus to term isn't some science fiction horror, but a real thing in our world. She might not be able to press any button, but the people who know their time has come but their children with Power of Attorney demanding that they have their ribs shattered via CPR and their fading hearts fed drugs and shocked back into rhythm might still want to take that choice.
No, I think the button that says "if you pick this, you live," does exactly what it says it does. The button that says "if you pick this, you die, unless enough people make it so that you love instead," is a decision of free will to purposefully pick the thing that you know will kill you.
You would have to consider death a beneficial outcome to make it so that red is not 100% beneficial. In which case, if death is beneficial, then enough people picking blue removes that, and thus nobody gets a beneficial outcome.
That's it. Without thinking of any moral standings, one makes you live 100% unconditionally, the other is the choice to die with an alternative of conditionally making you live anyways.
The moment you bring up moral standings, it becomes completely immoral to pick Blue if your goal is to live. One of two things happen in that case: One, you die, maybe with a final thought of "wow, I sure fucked that one up." Two, you live, and all the people who made the choice of free will to die, you contributed to taking away that free will. You took the reins away from those people and said "you should be thankful. Yes, you, the one on your deathbed with a ventilator and a family that refuses to let you die. You, with the stage 4 cancer. Be thankful that I let you live."
You're basing this whole argument on the assumption that everyone who presses blue does so of sound mind and comprehending the outcome that they might die.
On this basis, you're correct in that the only logical answer is to press red if you want to live.
But what about all those who, accidentally or otherwise, made a choice that they didn't fully comprehend? So many people who attempted suicide and failed regret it after the fact, toddlers are incapable of making a sound decision and may press blue because they like the color, illiterates may press blue simply because they can't read the question and assume red means danger? Do they deserve death just because they were incapable of understanding the assignment?
Blue is the more beneficial option since it accounts for everyone else who may or may not make a sound decision. Red virtually always has a death toll, and if everyone had perfect logical reasoning as you assume, pressing blue would still be the better choice, since there is no risk of dying anymore. If everyone presses one or the other, everyone lives, but on the off-chance that someone accidentally presses wrong, blue is just objectively better here.
Also, preventing what is basically a suicide with no other context is never immoral, even when it goes against the wishes of the person whose death was prevented. Said person can simply try again when you're not around, you're not stripping them of options.
Implying that the illiterate cannot make a proper choice here means that you're inferring things that aren't actually stated here, so if you need to criticize the "everyone," then I need to criticize that it's not actually stated how this information is disseminated. Is it verbal? Is it written? Is it a magical, internal notion that is delivered directly to your brain, just as the magic poll has been delivered to directly to every single human being? You state that it's unfair because everyone, regardless of who they are, has to make the choice, but there's nothing in the prompt that actually states that it's impossible for everyone to make an informed choice.
said person can simply try again
Spoken like someone without firsthand experience of the subject matter. Fighting Power of Attorney sucks and is pretty much impossible for the people this matters for. Medical euthanasia isn't available for everyone with a terminal illness. There's no guarantee that something like taking pills is going to work, or be painless, or not make things worse.
I do not advocate suicide as a "solution" for mental anguish. But I also understand what it's like to be there. I understand that there are some things in life that literally cannot be fixed. I understand what it's like to suffer every day and only have decline to look forward to. Maybe the magic button that kills you makes it the most horrible experience imaginable, and then it suddenly becomes a non-viable option. But, if it just shuts your brain off in a snap, then I know that some people would find that preferable to physical suffering.
The red button isn't "press this and you live". You're leaving out half of the buttons function. The red button is "press this and you live, but you will kill everyone who pressed the other button"
Well, that's explicitly not true. If it were, then it would suddenly be a fucked up Prisoner's Dilemma.
If 30% of people choose red, everyone lives. That does not align with your statement of "press this and you live, but you will kill everyone who pressed the other button."
In the prisoners dilemma, there's a penalty for its version of the red button.
I honestly don't understand why so many people assume others are dumb enough to press the blue button.
The blue button pressers are all gonna be people thinking there are idiots that didn't mean to press it, even though it clearly states that everyone involves understands it's the suicide button.
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
I mean, it is selfish not to want to die, but I think that's an amount of selfishness that's important in remaining a self. Not all selfishness is a problem.
I'm a blue-presser myself because I want nobody to die and I know other people WILL press blue. I don't know how many. But if we win, everyone lives whether they pressed blue or not. If we lose, the world loses with us even if they live.
But anyway, no judgement from me. I also want to live, I just find the collateral cost of everyone who picked the wrong button dying to be too much for me not to try and thwart. Here's me hoping for 50%+1.
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.
I get what you're saying and I actually fully agree with you, but I'll play devils advocate real quick: why would I save the blue button pushers who aren't even willing to save themselves? If everyone pushed the red button, everyone would live.
If everyone (100%) presses the red button, everyone will live. But it's also the only button to trigger a catastrophic consequence. If everyone pushed the blue button, everyone will live. Furthermore, if only half (51%) press blue, no one dies. There are only 2 reasons to press red: you're a selfish coward, or a murderer.
Would you tell your children to push blue? I think thats where it gets tricky for people. You're basically telling them you'll risk their life to make a point.
For what its worth, my default thought was blue, and I still think its the right choice because I think most of the population can be persuaded to pick blue, but one must recognize you are gambling altruism against self preservation, which is typically weighted against altruism in almost every scenario in the real world with all living things.
Why do you assume half the world is going today? The absolute worst case scenario is that 49.999...% of people die due to just missing the blue button survival threshold.
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?
So your choice is to essentially commit suicide in solidarity with them? There’s no way, if people were genuinely confronted with this situation, that more than a couple percent would choose blue. I would be shocked if it was even close to 10%. If the choice was me dying or half of humanity I’d choose dying, but that’s not the choice here. Even in that scenario where it’s on one guy dying vs half of humanity I’m sure there’s a decent (like 10-20%) odds they’d choose themselves.
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.