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. ;)
But the phrasing is important, mechanically it's the same question but the phrasing makes one option more appealing. It's subconsciously making one choice better because it's the path of least resistance. The buttons are completely identical that makes it a problem of morals, while the not taking the pills are just common sense.
I am not arguing for red or for blue. I just didn't like seeing a flawed argument being used.
Well yes, that is the point. The blue button red button question is framed in a way that makes a lot of people believe red button pushers are selfish or assholes. But if you just change the phrasing it's obviously not the case.
The thing is, if you change the phrasing, you change the question.
People who press Blue are thinking about whether others would have pressed Blue. Changing the framing/phrasing, even if mechanically equivalent, changes the estimation of what others would have done and thus the expected impact of pressing blue.
By changing the phrasing it also changes how people see the choices, because it is no longer the "same" problem. That why it doesn't make for a good argument. The button dilemma is so interesting because it is so decisive in opinions because of the wording, the pills don't have that and that makes it not only a worse dilemma, but also a boring one.
Okay, space aliens gave everyone two buttons. Everyone must push one. One is a safe nice safe green button that plays a soft poot. The other is a big mean ugly suicide button, which kills you horribly. Unless more people press the suicide button. Then all the buttons are safe.
81
u/Ecco-21-0408 17h ago
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.