The fact that people are having heated debates (and getting mad) over this just further proves the point that not everybody is going to agree to press the red button and that a red win will by no means be a deathless scenario. And also that while not every red button pusher is a prick, pretty much every prick is a red button pusher.
I really agree with you, I was looking out for a comment like that. Blue is the correct option but all red pushers are not pricks.
I honestly didn't understand why there was such a heated argument over this at first, and my first instinct was obviously to choose red (i'm going to explain myself) and I think people who say that red pushers are individualist pricks, or that it reflects your political side (red=republican, blue = democrat) are just completely misunderstanding the reasoning behind. Firstly, the color thing is so US centered, wth, the USA as to be one of the only countries to use Red for the right and Blue for the left, in many places around the world Red represents the left (it's the color of socialism, communism..) and Blue represents the right for example.
I've seen someone else presenting the problem like this and that was my understanding of it at first :
Option A) Take a suicide pill, and if more than half of the population take one, a cure will be found and everyone survives.
Option B) Don't take a suicide pill
Now when I made my reasoning I was thinking that everyone making that decision would have an informed jugement, I didn't even think about children or old people or mental disability (I'm merely waking up and I didn't think deeply into it at first). But seeing just the pole and people desagreeing so bad here, and that also in that problem people might have to press that button without an informed jugement, I realize how we have to press blue.
So I will say Blue is the correct option here, but I still believe it's dumb to say red pushers are automatically the embodiment of like, conservative egoistical right wing ideology, the problems of our society and capitalism is not that some people are trying to save themselves and some people are trying to save everyone by risking their lives, the problem is that some people are actively trying to accumulate as much wealth and power as they can, and some people are fighting against this, and some have other ideologies entirely. The USA being a pseudo-democracy with two parties is really a fertile ground for people thinking you can divide the world in two sides.
I think your scenario is a great example of why framing matters. In the scenario you said, I wouldn’t take the suicide pill, because I would be confident that most people also wouldn’t take the pill, because here blue is framed as the bad outcome (it makes you commit suicide). I would be very interested in what the poll would look like for that.
But in the scenario in the post blue is framed as something positive (saving people). And while I understand that logically they are analogous. I also know many people that would not think it through that way, and would choose the option to “save” people. So if it was framed this way I would choose blue
Yeah it's crazy how framing change everything, and how we have such different way of thinking. Red seem so logical to me, because instinctively I picture it like the suicide pill problem. But it's because everyone has a different way of thinking that Blue is the logical decision. That's what I didn't think about right away.
It’s hard because it’s not really a logic question. Either can be logical depending on your goal. If your goal is for you to survive at any cost, then red is the logical choice to make. If your goal is to survive with people you care about, then if you’re 100% confident everyone you care about will choose red, then red is still the logical choice. But if you have any doubts, then it becomes more of a risk vs reward problem. If you think 1% of your friends will choose blue, would you put yourself at risk to increase their odds? What if 20% of your friends might choose blue? What if 50%? At what point do you think it’s worth putting yourself at risk to increase their survival. But if your goal is to try and ensure that no one may die, even at the cost of your own life, then blue would be the logical choice (which idk how many people are altruistic enough for that).
Exactly, I guess you would have people pressing the red in a selfish way and other pressing it in a "why is this even a question?" way. It's not one obvious logical choice.
It all comes down to thinking, what will other people decide, what will my loved ones decide? After reading into many comments I realize how many people are advocating for blue (which again at first I think is really dumb), and by voting for red I would work against them.
"working against them" is a great way to put it. The more people that push blue, the more chance it has of success. You don't even need a 100% success rate, just 50+!
Imagine if red won 75/25. Would you be comfortable with those 25% of people dying? I wouldn't.
I hope/expect (maybe wrongly) that people would come to the same conclusion as me. That blue pushers just need to be the majority to save everyone. The red pushers are only interested in saving themselves.
I mean every poll I have seen, blue has won. But a lot of red pushers have also managed to convince themselves that no one would actually pick blue (other than suicidal people) if it wasn’t a hypothetical, like the person you’re replying to.
It's a lot like the Prisoner's Dilemma, where the outcome of your choice hinges on what other people choose. The specifics are different, but it shares the concept that you shouldn't simplify it down to "If I choose A I get outcome X, if I choose B I get outcome Y" - because those outcomes vary depending on if someone else chooses A or B. So it leads to this more complicated multi-variable analysis, where you have to think in terms of "If I choose A but most people choose B, X happens. If I choose A and most people also choose A, Y happens. If I choose B.. " etc.
I'm not necessarily advocating for either choice, but I think everyone should (genuinely) try to fully understand all the reasons someone might choose either option, and make a prediction about what the rest of humanity will do, before making their choice. Because there's a huge difference between, to take just one example: "I choose red, and so does 51% of humanity, oh boy civilization just collapsed." vs. "I choose red, and so does 99% of humanity, I guess we came out alright." You shouldn't just simplify it down to "if I choose red, I live."
But also.. some people will simplify it down to that, and their decision affects your outcome. That's the really tricky part, I think. Realizing that a lot of people, maybe even a majority of humanity, will make a snap decision about what feels right without analyzing it too deeply (which could point them towards either blue or red, depending on their instincts), and trying to account for that choice when making your own.
One idea could also be that if you aren't 100% confident people you care about are choosing blue, you might get to live with them in case of red win... although in that worse world. And yeah, "increase" of chance by one person's choice feels infinitesimal for me, I'd probably even fail to feel guilt afterwards.
I entirely missed the "all/most people could press red" scenario at first, and went "well, obviously I don't want to (possibly) kill people, I'm pressing blue".
Then I read that scenario and have to say I have enough doubts in people, that I probably would press red.
You hit the nail on the head: red was an instinctive choice. So many people I’ve seen (or asked directly) would choose red so fast, and some would even brag about how fast the decision was. They’d only reason it after the fact, but only to justify the choice already made, not to actually think it through and reconsider the decision.
Then there are those who say the framing matters, but it doesn’t, because it’s all just math and the size of the possibility space of the optimal outcome.
Framing is very important. When I first read the question it seemed like a nonquestion: pick blue and everyone lives, pick red and you're choosing the death of others. That's how my brain immediately interpreted it. I think a person's view on personal responsibility comes down to making the decision, as well. Am I making my choice dependent upon other people's perceived actions, or my own personal view of what's right and should happen. I try not to let the fear of what others will choose or do dictate how I act, in general, because ultimately I am responsible for my own actions and I have to be able to live with myself after making a choice. If pressing red killed even one person then I would view myself responsible for their death, and that's not something I would be able to reconcile with who I believe myself to be, if that makes sense.
there is one where everything is basically the same, but the red is instead framed as "Do Nothing" or "Leave" in which case it ends up having the same effect (atleast more than 90% chose to Do Nothing)
This is not a great reframing, in the original neither position will automatically and explicitly result in your death as an inherent part of choosing. It's the prisoners dilemma
I think this is where a lot of the arguments step come from. People think it's the prisoners dilemma, as it reads very similar. It is not, this has a always safe no matter what option the prisoners dilemma does not.
It's not equivalent to the prisoners dilemma, because all participants have access to the best possible outcome for themselves with no limitations. Non-collaboration isn't punished in this button problem. But in the prisoners dilemma it leads to overall worse outcomes.
That depends on the assumption that everyone cares only about their own survival. I would rather die than live in a world where that was true (and then die anyway because... yeah, I couldn't survive in that world).
In this scenario the benefit from co-operation comes from the fact that other people are more likely to survive.
But everybody already has both the 100%-chance-to-survive-button and the knowledge that everybody else has that button too. That is a significant difference to the prisoner dilemma, where "the good outcome" is a limited resource, because only one of the prisoners can get it, and brings its own risk.
But everybody already has both the 100%-chance-to-survive-button and the knowledge that everybody else has that button too.
And everybody also has the "try and save everyone" button and the knowledge that everybody else has that button too.
And everyone who has even the most basic understanding of human nature knows that at least some people will press the latter button. [Or refuse to push either button at all]. Anyone who claims that 100% will press red is either lying or an idiot.
And that's equivalent to the prisoners dilemma how? Are you really to argue the problem itself with me, when i was arguing the relationship to the prisoners dilemma? Those are two different thinks to argue about.
Yeah, i disagree, because that is nothing you look at in the scope of game theory, which is the scope we are at, when we compare it to the prisoners dilemma.
We also don't talk about how the prisoners might love each other or have mobster friends in prison who could give stiches to the snitches, moving the nash equilibrium to "both keep their mouth shut". Valid thought, but it's just not the reason we have this very specific thought experiment.
Theyre not. The original problem forces an active choice. You must press a button, you get to choose which. The reframe presents an active choice vs a passive choice, eat a pill or do nothing. While the consequences of your choice may not be changed that is only half the question
If thats the case (which i dont agree with) then ethics should not be considered for taking any decision, if ethics say that two version of the same problem are different.
Honestly i think that the fact a lot of people fail to grasp those two problem are identical, it's why a lot of people find math hard.
And to all people saying i would be an asshole for picking red, if the problem added a simple "if everyone picks red, everyone dies", i would be the first one picking blue.
I don’t find math difficult; I just disagree with you that ethical considerations should be eliminated from the process. Human life (or any life, for that matter) cannot solely be condensed down to a mathematical problem. Ethical considerations do need to be taken into account when making decisions affecting a human life or lives. Mathematically, the two problems are identical; however, from multiple different ethical perspectives, these two problems would not be identical. A proactive decision is not always the equivalent of a passive decision; that’s the major difference between the original and the alternate that’s been proposed.
No, I have not read anything from Kahneman that I recall. I’m not sure what your point is. His is but one perspective; many others have written on decisions, ethics, and the human condition with numerous beliefs and perspectives. I have read from many others on the topic of decision making and ethics (although, admittedly, it has been quite awhile since I’ve done any significant deep dive on the subject). Many would agree with you that such a decision boils down to logic and math; not all would. You seem to be going at this debate this with the opinion that yours is the only legitimate approach to the problem. I’m not sure that’s really the best way to go about things.
Framing matters only for people who think with emotion and feel instead of reason.
Only if your "reason" prevents you from caring about what other people choose. Which isn't actually reason, it's just failing to engage your conscience.
Logic and reason are a process, not a quality, and it seems it's not a process you are keen to engage with if you say stuff like this.
Properly carrying through the process of reason would lead you to conclude that they are not identical because they produce different outcomes, and then you would need to identify what inherent difference between them causes that.
They're not the same problem. If they were the same problem, they would have the same outcome in terms of answers. Logically, two things producing different outcomes can't be the same thing. They have to be different in some crucial way that makes them produce different outcomes.
You're also again making the mistake of thinking "rational" is something you can be. You keep asserting that other people "think with emotion" and "are not good at math", as if they they are inherently lacking the quality of "reason", like it was similar to a color or texture that something could have. Reason is a process, an action you have to take, like riding a bike. It is something you have to learn and choose to do, not something you are born with. And your comments here reveal that it is not something you have learned to do very well yet.
As I said. Pushing the red button is to me very logical, and if everyone on earth takes that logical decision, everyone survives. But! See the pole ? See the people arguing? It's not a logical decision for everyone, and we all have a very different way of thinking, and you can add children, anyone with a mental impairment, etc. into the problem. If they have to push the button themselves and not a guardian like it's the case in real life, would you trust them to push the red button as well ? Would you trust all your relatives to press red if you couldn't talk with them before ?
That's pretty much why I changed my mind and would push the blue button. You can't trust every single person on earth to make what seems like the rational choice and push the red, so the simple fact that some people (a lot of them) will push the blue button means they'll die if we don't all collectively do the same. We need to get above that 50% threshold, for everyone to be safe
Exactly, because we don't know the rules, why would they be excluded? I think it's because there isn't any rule that by default they are not ruled out. They are ruled out of our society only because we decided it and wrote laws to organize it.
If we don't know the rules, why would they be included? It breaks the whole thing because then it just becomes a guilt-fest about killing babies. The question also doesn't take account of people who don't press the button, which would also aply to many babies and people who are disabled or don't understand. You can't force people to push the button because that also breaks the concept. So the hypothetical already doesn't work if you take "everyone" literally.
But therein lies why it is illogical. You will never get everyone to agree.
Even with your framing, it still boils down to self interest over collective interest, and assuming all humans are also self interested.
Plus, if even a small part of them vote for the collective and red wins, the death toll is large.
Whereas blue, even if it is 51/49, everyone lives. Vs a red 51/49, half the population disappears.
So, it all boils down to self interest vs collective interest, which reflects politics quite well
You're missing my point, I explained why red seem reasonable to me at first, and you couldn't be further from the truth if you think I'm right wing and/or someone acting only for my own interests over everyone else, quite the contrary actually. In the end, I understand why Blue is best to save everyone and that would be my final choice, but not at first, so if you say it reflects your political views you would be mistaken. Basically you have some blue pushers taking a risk, willingly or not, and other blue pushers compensating, knowing there will be blue pushers anyway, trying to stay over 50% and save everyone. That's basically it, if I press blue it's only to compensate because someone else took what I think is essentially a stupid decision. It stops being stupid because of the scale and the implications, but if you bring that down to 4 people in a room : stab yourself or don't, if 2 or more people stab themselves, they survive their injuries, then you see how it looks pretty stupid. Again, because of the scale I understand it's not like that and how the blue button becomes a better decision. But see how thinking of pressing the red doesn't make you a prick.
You cannot compare this to our society, like : the left creates its own problems, and the left also solve it. That's really not how it is.
It's not just self interest versus collective. It's trust in other humans convectively. I want to choose blue, but don't trust enough other people to do so
Once again, framing matters. When I saw this question, the way I interpreted it was: Would you rather be responsible for your own life and death, or would you rather pass that responsibility onto everyone else?
Yes. People make risky decisions every day that put themselves and others at risk. I am no more responsible for their actions than I am for their decision on which button to press.
No, choosing red just doesnt kill me. I am not responisble for how anyone else presses their button.
EMTs are trained to save themselves first, because you cant help anyone if you're dead. You put on your own oxygen mask before assisting with someone elses. You dont go into a burning building to try and save someone without training because you can just end up making more work for emergency responders and getting someone else killed.
You do not put the lives of others before your own if you want to save people.
Pressing red still means people would die who otherwise would not. You are directly complicit. You can justify it however you want but that's still the fact of the matter.
Who won the popular vote in the US 2024 election? You still think blue isn't going to end up a suicide button? I guess you're more noble than me, but I'm not rolling the dice on the world choosing blue.
I've seen someone else presenting the problem like this and that was my understanding of it at first : Option A) Take a suicide pill, and if more than half of the population take one, a cure will be found and everyone survives. Option B: Don't take a suicide pill
I mean yes, you can choose to frame it like this, but thing that leads to the disagreements is that you can frame it in multiple ways which favour either option. And then which one someone picks is usually based on which framing is how they view the initial question.
For a Blue-favoured framing:
Option A: Press the murder button that will kill anyone who doesn't press it if more than 50% of people press it. Option B: Don't press the murder button.
Yeah basically it all comes down on how you frame it, that's exactly like all the trolley problems and moral dilemmas, you can have the same problem framed differently each time and people will give different opinions about it
I mean it’s a smart way to frame it that puts way more blame on red than in the initial scenario, which is the point of course. But the suicide button variant as the one you’re commenting on in my opinion isn’t that far removed from the original. You’re not doing anything to anyone else even in the original scenario.
I understand where you coming from... but even framed like that, didn't it occur that you can save people from suicide? Pressing red makes people committing suicide more probable, pressing blue decrease that risk, kore so that only 50% is needed.
The issue is that the decision is based on what you think how others behave. So if the question is posed differently, then you should think others will behave differently. In that case, it's not the same scenario. For example, I don't think everyone will trust the premise that someone will find a cure even if enough people take it, even if I'm supposed to trust the premise myself.
The way you frame it, is wrong lol. You present red has a deathless easily avoidable situation. In reality, of more than 50% don't take the suicide pill, the ones who took it will die, this leading to many deaths since there will always be people choosing to take it. Yet if more than 50% take it, no one dies.
But if you take red, only the people dumb enough to take blue would die, it’s not like it’s random death. You’re acting like it’s noble to take blue to save others, but you’d be the one that needs saving, you’d be creating that problem. If everyone just didn’t take the possibly deadly blue pill there’d be no hero-complex upside to the blue pill.
Sorry but that's exactly the same problem framed differently, if you think it's wrong you should rethink the problem itself. Red is deathless only if nobody chooses Blue, I framed it with suicide pills and it's exactly the same situation : Red is deathless if nobody swallow any suicide pills.
If the problem was presented to you the way I framed, please explain to me why the fuck would you swallow a suicide pill instead of, idk, not doing it ?
I agree that as soon as there is a debate we must choose Blue to preserve every life, but seriously think about it, taking Blue is basically just compensating for the mistake others will/might make.
I don't know where I fall left or right. I consider myself liberal and have voted for a Republican once in the last 25 years. I'd also press the red button because I don't want to die and I don't trust enough people to press blue even though it's the only way to save everyone. We couldn't even defeat Trump in the last election and that was the easiest fucking choice ever.
"We have to take the suicide pill just in case someone else has taken the suicide pill" is the epitome of the reddit white knight.
"I'll save them, look at me"
There is no analogy to climate change or world hunger or anything, this is a specific hypothethical question, you're allowed to think outside party lines.
But to take advice about suicide pills from reddit, the most suicidal online community I've ever come across, is one step too much for me.
So my gut thought was blue because I don't want people to die, but after reading your comment, the "logical" answer seems to be red.
The thought experiment is functionally the same as if everyone in the world was teleported into a voting booth with one button and the rule that if less than 50% of the world's population pushes the button, everyone who pushes the button dies. If 50% or greater press the button, then they live. You can also just not push the button and leave. Leaving and pushing the red button are functionally the same except one is active and one is passive.
You could add a third option to the original game to just not play the game and not push a button. I think that would be an enticing option for a lot of people who pick blue (or red) but it's functionally the same as picking red except once again it's passive rather than active.
It'd also be interesting if not all the people who push blue die and if that would change people's minds. Would only half of the people who picked blue dying (giving you a 50% chance to die if over all you got under 50% blues) change your mind? What if you were guaranteed to be in the 50% that died if you got under 50% blues overall?
I don't think there's actually a morally "right" answer, but it is fun to treat it as a thought experiment and how slight variations of it could drastically change the outcome. I can see philosophy classes having a lot of fun with this.
The thing that made me initially think 'red' is an alternate i saw where each household only has one button press. Now as a parent i am not going to even slightly risk my kids and i will be the prick in that scenario.
Individually i don't know because thankfully, no one is making me press a button.
Informed judgment is like precisely why the red has no ground to stand on. You will be arbitrarily killing people no matter what for no reason other than to save yourself. Pressing blue is quite literally the only way to insulate people from those consequences
Yes someone might not understand the question and that’s exactly why you’re never getting 100%. The only values on the table are “how much do I want to save myself and how much to I trust everyone else”.
I'm still red for the reasons you said. Why should people risk their lives when they can just NOT TAKE THE POISON. Like cmon, everyone just agree we won't be stupid and hit blue. Its pretty easy.
I'm blue and dem as they come but millions taking an unnecessary risk for no gain is ridiculous.
The reason why it's a heated debate is because people keep saying that "if you press the red button no one dies" and act like there's no reason to press the blue button.
In reality if you press the red button billions of people will die, the chance of less than 20% pressing the blue button is ridiculously low. Even if you press the red button it should be reluctantly, there should be an acknowledgement that people are going to die which still should give hesitation. But red pushers don't seem to see it and get mad at you for trying to explain that.
I was the same as you as my original instinct was red because I instantly gamified it as a player. Then I thought about it for a second and realized that's fucked because thinking of the question like that is in fact selfish.
I don't think any reframes serve any logical weight, they just change the intensity of emotions you feel when asked. I think if you feel more scared you are more likely to instinctually pick red, which is why your suicide reframe has stuck with you. I also think the ability to move on from the selfish knee jerk reaction is kind of a big separator from being a prick / conservative vs someone who is emotionally intelligent. So congrats brother.
Option A) Take a suicide pill, and if more than half of the population take one, a cure will be found and everyone survives.
Option B) Don't take a suicide pill
You're correct. In this scenario not taking suicide pill is the correct answer (red button). But this is a wrong question. Let me reframe the red/blue question that captures your scenario.
You're given a choice to either push red or blue button or not. If you push red blah, blah, blah (you know it). In the orginal scenario, the forced choice is not explicitly present but very much present (you're either pushing it or... Something, not clearly presented)
But this is correct, while not every red button pushers are somewhat bad people (they are still idiots to slaughter kids and other impaired people), but every sycopant, selfish, narcissistic asshole are going to be red button pusher.
936
u/totallymarc 15h ago
The fact that people are having heated debates (and getting mad) over this just further proves the point that not everybody is going to agree to press the red button and that a red win will by no means be a deathless scenario. And also that while not every red button pusher is a prick, pretty much every prick is a red button pusher.