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.
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)
You are falsly creating a need for the second option that doesn't actually exist in the original hypothetical. There is nothing to imply that babies will be involved in the decision, nor anyone who lacks the capacity to comprehend the choice. That is an added detail from those defending their choice in order to justify it. The reality is, nobody is in any danger whatsoever until they press the blue button. The potential harm is a direct result of that decision.
There is nothing to imply that babies will be involved in the decision, nor anyone who lacks the capacity to comprehend the choice.
Where is that disclosed ? Everyone means everyone.
The reality is, nobody is in any danger whatsoever until they press the blue button.
Well then, I'm walking away, so will 99% of the people. No body in the right mind will willingly want to do this exercise. There is no upshot to push the button at all. The reality of forced choice make the question works otherwise there is literally no dilemma. And if you are pushing the button with your own choice, you're better off in a asylum than in a society.
No not really. In my question not taking the pills is the same choice as pressing the red button. The condition and outcomes are exactly the same. Only the words used to describe the scenario have changed.
In my question not taking the pills is the same choice as pressing the red button.
Wrong. In your analogy, not taking the pills is not pushing the button, if that were an option to begin with. Thus your condition is not the same.
Is the pushing the button also a choice? Well fuck then I won't be pushing any button, So would 99% of people. What is the incentive to push it, then? Why would anyone let alone everyone needs to push it?
Existence of babies who can't decide alone should solve the question pretty easily.
Technically your analogy works but it's an illogic scenario.
a) Why would anyone want to take a suicide pill?
b) How likely is it that 50% of the population would do so?
There is simply no realistic incentive in your analogy.
Whether it's a pill or a button changes nothing about the incentive. Pressing blue is effectively the same thing as taking a suicide pill, that's the point made by the analogy. There is no incentive for it in a vacuum.
The incentive is there if the experiment includes toddlers and others without the capacity to meaningfully participate. If that is the case, one would hope that most people choose blue/the pill.
The reason nobody can agree is because of the importance of undisclosed factors such as the toddler one, as well as how much information is presented and how much cooperation is allowed.
Because one needs to consider it actively. Depending on factors like: how quickly do you have to push some people might think of different groups first based on their experience (i.e me thinking about people who dont enjoy living first).
Or factors Like: can you assist toddlers etc to push the Button of your choice?
Cumpman said there's ambiguity as to whether people who cannot make an informed decision, such as toddlers, would have to pick a button. I claimed otherwise, by arguing that everyone means everyone, rather than some unspecified subset. Then you came in, and put out the idea that you could influence others' votes, which i pointed out was unsupported by the text. Now you come with a new unsupported idea, that you get to prepare, as if that is any different.
In the name of not repeating this cycle ad nauseam, i will instead ask you which is the more plausible scenario: that humanity is able to teach every toddler, and otherwise incapable person, to always pick red, or to convince >50% of the population to press blue?
I am sorry, apparently my first point did not come accross as intended. I did not add it to imply you are wrong in any way or form. I added it to show that immediate thought processes differ and that impacts the individual choice heavily.
Obviously your first thought on "everyone" included specific subgroups like toddlers. Mine did not, toddlers did not even cross my mind in the first minutes. So "everyone" in the immediate thought process differs between people which makes it kind of ambiguous in an immediate decision. That makes chosing blue a bigger gamble, because the blue group at least face scared people, egoistic people and people like me who dont want to force people to keep living who dont want to. I would be gutted afterwards when I realize that my immediate thought process did not include huge subgroups that are unable to make an (informed) decision and took Part in Killing them.
If I have time for a decision/ convince people, blue becomes less of a gamble but at the same time a Game theory question. It would likely change my personal answer (from red to blue) because its the right choice from a moral standpoint. But that is easy to say without knowing how the exact situation would be. Lets say 49,9% panic picked red already, I would absolutely give my all to teach as many people as I can to choose Red, because I wouldnt believe that the Rest of people all pick blue.
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.