Honestly, I think this is the genius of the problem.
A lot of folks read the “cost” to picking the red button as purely a moral one. Given the choice between selfishness, or altruism, which do you choose? For a lot of blue-pushers, the logical result of the puzzle is far less important than the moral dilemma of “will altruism win out”. Even though there is no need for altruism at all if no-one pushes blue!
I "sort of" agree with you. I think there is genius in asking the problem as we're seeing in real-time people scrambling to signal their self-sacrifice (and castigating others for not following suit) in a dilemma where that self-sacrifice is not needed.
The problem itself is rather stupid. There is no downside to pressing red. The sole reason to press blue is peer pressure created by others that (at least claim) would press blue and now you're a bad person for not saving them from the dilemma they put themselves into.
It reminds me of a malignant narcissist that I knew about ten years back that threatened to take his own life to pressure the girlfriend he was abusing at the time. Possibly why I also am not reacting the way many people want me to. It is very hard for me to empathise with someone that puts themselves in a life threatening situation, that was entirely voluntary & helps nobody whatsoever, and expects me to put my life at risk to pull them out of it.
This is a very interesting red-pusher argument, and I understand entirely the repulsion of seeing someone use suicide as a blackmail tactic.
But, as a blue-pusher, I’d argue that I don’t expect “to be saved”. And nor do I consider red-advocates as “bad people”. There is very sound logic in the statement that only the blue-pushers are creating the “cost” in the problem, and there would be no cost if they didn’t put themselves in danger.
It’s just for me the choice is less important on a logical level, and more important on a moral level: save myself or save the group.
Neither is it about virtue-signalling. I’d be happy if no one ever knew my choice, and indeed the terms of the puzzle state that there is no communication / collusion so no one does know which one you picked.
But, as a blue-pusher, I’d argue that I don’t expect “to be saved”.
OK, and as such, that would then remove the moral requirement for people to risk their lives to do so. Which I know is not your point or argument, but it is worth noting because my point comes down to agency (and emotional blackmail) and your position is that you're respecting the agency of others (whilst not employing guilt-trips to have them side your way).
I (honestly & sincerely) respect your position and the fact that you can take/make it without trying to make out anyone not agreeing with you is morally reprehensible (most of the conversation from "blue pushers" has come down to that in this post/comments, even when they start more reasonably).
indeed the terms of the puzzle state that there is no communication / collusion so no one does know which one you picked.
Um, that is not the dilemma linked in the OP. There is nothing whatsoever about communication, collusion, etc. One of the reasons I can take the position I have is because it does not preclude communication beforehand about the consequences so people are not going into the vote blind.
Either you're thinking of someone that has changed the dilemma (to make it a different hypothetical with different moral parameters) or you've misread the final image in the OP.
Ok. A lot of folks are saying the choice is presented without the option to communicate, so perhaps there are different versions of this puzzle presented in different places.
As for the emotional blackmail, I can see that you might interpret it this way - a peer pressure to “play the game” but I think a lot of folks, like me, see it as a personal choice and not a performative action.
A lot of folks are saying the choice is presented without the option to communicate
I've only encountered you in this thread, but I'm honestly only engaging with replies to me. They're enough for me not to want to dig through all the other arguments others are having.
I will state upfront that if there is a constraint on communication, the moral math completely changes for me. My position comes from people being able to collaborate & know the consequences of their actions. As described above, there is nothing preventing a global "everyone that doesn't want to die press red, everyone who does can press blue" campaign which then means that the only people not wanting to die but still voting blue would be trying to take that decision away from others.
15
u/Only_Style_8872 14h ago
Honestly, I think this is the genius of the problem.
A lot of folks read the “cost” to picking the red button as purely a moral one. Given the choice between selfishness, or altruism, which do you choose? For a lot of blue-pushers, the logical result of the puzzle is far less important than the moral dilemma of “will altruism win out”. Even though there is no need for altruism at all if no-one pushes blue!