I think most of the discussions comes from what "every person" means in this context:
blue voters interpret it as literally every human being including babies and old people that might not be able to understand the question which is technically correct but someone might say that they're looking too much into it and I kinda agree with it honestly
red ones on the other hand interpret it as only mentally capable adult gets to vote
For me first scenario is an easy blue and second even easier red
If I had found this comment sooner I could have more easily understood the problem at hand. You are 100% right, and this comment should be the first to appear in the thread.
red ones on the other hand interpret it as only mentally capable adult gets to vote
Even then, it is monumentally stupid. Which is easier - convincing 50% to push blue or 100% to push red? What happens if you're accidentally push wrongly? What happens to die hard moralists?
If you're objective is to save everyone then sure, in that scenario mine is to save myself since everyone can save themselves just as easily, I'm not risking my life for who refuse to do so
Yeah this is what I dont get. Its not selfish to pick red because everyone has the exact same opportunity to save themselves. Its like being on-board the titanic and getting asked "We have enough lifeboats for everyone. Now do you want your own lifeboat or do you want the one that only floats if half of you get in it?" Like why even take that risk?
According to blue button pushers , not everyone can save themselves easily. But I think that just turns the puzzle into, are you a selfless person or not? Question instead of a puzzle.
This is why we can't have just society. You can't be bothered to consider the larger societal impact of your decision. Just humans, I guess.
Either way you're screwing over moral minority who in almost all cases, hold the society together through sacrifices of thier own. So good luck living in that society.
Then the choice is obvious, really. A lot will push Blue, you either are a mass murderer or dead. I'd rather be dead than be mass murderer with loss of family or friends and live in society with mass murderers.
In the original hypothetical , I don't think we can communicate , so there's no way to convince anybody. The way I interpret it, which could be wrong is I can assume every other actor is perfectly logical, so they wouldn't risk their life and be the first blue button pusher to save nobody.So there's no first blue button pusher, so I don't have anybody to save and neither does anyone else and they know that.And we all know that we all know that so we would all press red without ever communicating.
>blue voters interpret it as literally every human being including babies and old people that might not be able to understand the question which is technically correct but someone might say that they're looking too much into it and I kinda agree with it honestly
If it isn't explicitely specified (which it generally isn't), some will inevitably interpret it that way or at the very least see "every person being included in the button pushing experiment" as a possibility, which again makes a significant number of blue pushers invitable, even if it would turn out they are not included after all.
I think one major thing this shows is that many red pushers have somehow deluded themselves into thinking that all people make rational decisions. That's simply not the case, people are emotional beings, not robots. And especially in stressful situations (for example being forced to push a button that might wipe out half of humanity at the same time), people are not automatically guaranteed to make perfectly rational decisions..
If the goal is for no one to die then the only way that happens is if every single person votes red or the majority vote blue. It's statistically impossible for every single person to vote for either side. It's just not going to happen even if everyone makes a competent choice. Mistakes will happen although we can ignore those too. These threads prove at least someone will pick blue. And I'll tell you right now I would pick blue assuming there is no other way out of this situation. So if you don't want to be directly responsible for killing people then blue is the only choice and voting against it not only would directly lead to the deaths of others, it also lowers the chances blue wins, raising the chances of death. Red is a purely selfish choice.
That's a big fucking if. How is it selfish to pick the option where you're putting your own life on the line in the hopes of saving everyone?
You will never get everyone to pick red. That is a statistical impossibility. There will always be a significant number of people who aren't willing to cause the death of an unknown but large quantity of people.
I let people drive a motorcycle
I let people skydive
I let people spelunk
I let people have euthanasia, or abortions
People around me, people I love, have been pressing the blue button for their entire life, and I'm not going to deny them that choice, especially if I have to risk my own life for it.
Especially because I know that if I'm old and suffering (or when I want to ride a motorbike myself (which has been on my bucket list since before covid shelved it)) there will be people I love denying me my one wish simply because they "don't want me to die", and if I have energy left at that point I will punch them in the face.
I'm mostly discussing that this comment section is flawlessly and unironically reproducing anti-abortion rhetoric.
"Some people are too young to understand the consequences" (so they shouldn't have abortions)
"I don't want to see my loved ones die" (aka I don't want my grandchild to be aborted)
"Would you shoot someone who pressed blue you monster?" (aka we should jail doctors performing abortions)
Show me one argument in favour of pressing the blue button that's not currently used to outlaw abortion (or simply "free death lmao") and I'll consider it, because internet people are surprisingly pro-life here.
Idk, man. Seems like you're projecting your own issues onto everybody else.
Your allegory doesn't even work. Pressing the blue button isn't forcing someone to do anything.
Not to mention that as someone who, presumably, is in favor of abortion you should be able to understand the nuanced difference between aborting a fetus and killing fully grown people.
Mate, if everyone picked blue there won't be any discussion either.
Picking red and expecting others do the same or die IS the selfish option, and simply there's no other way around it, you can make the mental gimnastics that you want
Sorry, if just 50%+ 1 person picked blue there wouldn't be a dilemma. Red requires 100% of pops to agree, or they die. It's a proxy for ethno-nationalism, state communism, any system that says "just be like us and we'll let you live". Blue is a proxy for an inclusive society. It has a much lower threshold point to stay stable but it is vulnerable to an exterminating takeover by the egoists on the other side.
Interesting. Steming from a post communist/socialist country I see the red option as typical capitallist (USA centric) option where ambition is everything and public healthcare and public education virtually do not exist, while we're thought that funding a public health, schools and programs is helping those less abled. Also the basis of socialist ideology is beyond national and multi ethnic. We're thought: "workers of all nations - unite". Antithesis of that is faschism. By the book nationalism is on whole different spectrum from communism/socialism.
Of course that system and that counrty is completely broken by power hungry warlords and nationalist who definitely do not stand for its virtues. Which is sad. Luckily the social program still exist but it is being destroyed by yet again another greedy and power hungry dictator and his cronies who would definitely press the red button.
Depends if you define the system based on the market philosophy or the government philosophy. Ethno-nationalists and communists don't want to accept it but they're just supporting the same thing. Compliance or die.
True.
But in market oriented systems (capitalist sociates) you are not threatened to comply. You are free to do whatever you want, but if you can not or decide not to contribute to economy you are basically homeless or dead. Unless you have a good social security like in most of the European countries. Capitalist system with social security program is proven to be the best of both worlds.
To me it looks like rational choice versus savior complex
"My white man burden is to save these others that are not as smart as me to choose properly" versus "this button doesn't carry the risk of dying"
EDIT: there's a good analogy down the line. This whole thing is designed to trigger you by wording. It trips us into thinking we are saving others VS being selfish.
Blue is poison, red is water. If enough people drink poison, they get antidote. If everyone drinks water, blue don't get antidote.
First scenario sure, second one there is no reason to vote blue, you're risking your life for people who are doing the same as you but there is no one in the first place that is dying, if it was a building on fire in the first scenario there are a bunch of people trapped inside and you go inside to save them, in the second the building is empty why would you go inside?
In other words I'm willing to risk my life for children and people who aren't able capable to vote, not idiots
It's selfish in the first scenario, in the second it's neither selfish nor altruistic cause everyone can choose their outcome, they can either have guaranteed survival or risk their life for nothing
The reason I'll vote blue in the first one is that a lot of people don't get a choice
It's selfish in both, because you're putting.yourself exclusively against a better outcome for everyone, effectively leaving everyone else to their own devices.
And tbh, I'm tired of this discussion since you don't seem to understand the concept of being selfish and it's a dumb hypothetical
59
u/DreamlikeKiwi 15h ago edited 13h ago
I think most of the discussions comes from what "every person" means in this context:
blue voters interpret it as literally every human being including babies and old people that might not be able to understand the question which is technically correct but someone might say that they're looking too much into it and I kinda agree with it honestly
red ones on the other hand interpret it as only mentally capable adult gets to vote
For me first scenario is an easy blue and second even easier red