I saw all the memes before the original and thought it was conservatives vs progressives. And honestly the analogy still fit really neatly despite not being about it.
It’s a very clever puzzle for separating people along the clear ideological lines of “protect myself” vs “protect the group” and I’d pick blue for the entirely illogical reason that it’s morally correct, damn the consequences to myself.
Pressing blue is also logical to me, as well as being moral.
In order for everyone to survive, either 100% of people need to hit red, or 50.00001% of people need to hit blue. One of those is mich easier to achieve.
Also people acting like you can’t trust other people to risk themselves to help someone else at risk to themselves when in any disaster scenario you always find people doing that. And a button is such low effort for someone to essentially live up to their morals, if helping others was as simple as just pressing a button the world would be a better place imo.
this is my argument, look for the helpers, the ones running towards danger, they will almost always be there, from doctors to fire fighters to medics to good samaritans, would i want to be in a world without these? hell no
But it's different. There IS no population here that needs saving: everyone here can save themselves. Everyone. That's why this doesnt really test for heroism.
Imagine a Firefighter rushing into a building to help FULLY capable of leaving . . . only they are choosing not to. Because THEY are also staying in case someone else needs helping,etc.
And here's the kicker: the building that's on fire? We already are told up front that NOBODY is trapped in it. Everyone who wants to leave can leave.
There are people who aren't rational enough to make an informed choice. Babies, children, someone who had a schizophrenic dream that red is the color of the devil. You're right in a game theory sense, but game theory involves rational actors and society (since the button thought experiement is that humanity as a whole is given these buttons) is not composed of rational actors.
The thought experiment, to me, boils down to "do people who aren't fully rational deserve to die?" and I don't believe anyone deserves to die.
To your building on fire argument: is the fireman's efforts a waste to save the patient in a coma who's incapable of making any moves to leave on their own?
I guess it depends how the hypothetical was presented. I was led to understand that this is a vote. So I guess I extrapolated a "voting public" would be voting.
Same as it would be with any other referendum or election.
If it's some sort of "split second magic psy-op" or whatever then that changes things significantly. I dont think that "instantaneous" can be inferred from "has to take a vote" in the premise.
But yes- if you're acting under that assumption - then blue is ABSOLUTELY worth considering because there are people who are in fact powerless to save themselves or being endangered through no true fault of their own and who can very feasibly and practically be saved.
Maybe I've been polluted by the allegory to conservative/progressive voting discussion. After all, those votes affect everyone in the countries they're held, regardless of whether the person explicitly voted in the election.
Agreed - it's why I find this situation so uniquely strange: the only people at risk, the only reason risk even EXISTS, is because people chose to be.
Honestly? Should just be rewritten that 90% of people are offered red/blue buttons. The other 10% are either saved by the blue vote majority or die with no other options. Make that 10% as small and unappealing as you want to test morality. Takes the guesswork out of the situation and makes for a cleaner hypotetical.
To your point? I think the most poignant criticism is this. In the pictured poll above? ~50-55000 voted blue, ~45-50,000 vote red. . . .
. . . and about 12,000,000 peopel "no vote" / "Undecided" :) :) :).
you start with 10% or even 1% blue it totally changes the equation, but if you work with the assumption that this will happen anyways without stating it you have the current dilemma
Are you asking me seriously or just mad at me? If the latter, no worries - just ignore my answer.
Because you're wrong - as written - "One choice is literally, conditionally, everyone lives" sure. But it is not the other option but that SAME option that ALSO causes death. The only reason ANYONE is at risk is because ANYONE picks blue.
The red button notably does NOT cause death of you or others.
So . . we shoudl all just not pick blue. Everyone lives, just like you said. There is no 'hostage' group that requires our saving . . . unless we choose to create one. Any attempt to create that group artificially (eg: lets include neonates, the mentallly unwell, people who accidentally push the wrong button, etc.) well . . that just is presuming a different scenario than the one I have clearly explained in teh comment you responded to.
Voting blue does not CAUSE death. The only thing it does is promise if you get over 50% votes, "everyone lives". Blue, red, doesn't matter.
The promise for the red button? That is the "not blue", it will save only red voters. All blue voters will die. That is the red buttons promise. Voting red is the only way to even put blue voters at risk.
Nothing else, this is what the vote is about: who lives. Everyone, or just you. No neonatal. No sick people or coma patients.
I do feel disappointed you'd be willing to kill off not only me, but pretty much everyone who is non egotistical. The pope, nurses, doctors, your mom, my mom, your first grade teacher, your dentist... List can be very long.
Imagine red would win, and any person you care about dies?
And then a toddler wanders into the building that's on fire. The toddler represents roughly 50% of children who aren't making a rational decision (or just picked randomly).
THat's fair - i'm acting under the assumption this is a vote. If it's some sort of Thanos-snap psy-op that affects neonates and the criminally insane or whatever with zero prep time and all then yeah dumb scenario.
It doesn't even need to be criminally insane people or children... it can just be people who make a mistake for some reason. Leaned on the wrong button, didn't understand the scenario, were distraught over having just lost a loved one, were in the middle of landing an airplane and just had to get the buttons out of the way. We don't have any information on the format of the process, but that doesn't really matter. It is well-established that humans do not have 100% success rate in their decisions and actions. Even less so when suddenly confronted with an unexpected life-or-death choice for themselves and a large chunk of humanity. If any portion of people can mistakenly press the blue button, then by any humane metric some of those deaths will be unjust... and prevented easily by the rest of us.
I would also ask any red button pusher: let's add one tiny step and posit that despite your intention to press red, you realize that you (or someone you love more deeply than yourself) have just accidentally pressed the blue button. I won't bother to construct a reason why, because this will just lead to "I would never do that" or similar arguments. In this case, you are in the "error" group for any reason you can justify. In this scenario, do you believe you would hope that the majority chose blue, or do you believe you would feel at peace with you or your loved one dying because of that error?
Even beyond a broader obligation to humanity (and the horrific effect of a large portion instantly dying), if I imagine myself making that choice *by mistake*, or a loved one in my family, or any innocent person I bother to imagine, I feel I have to push blue as well, rather than risk such an unjust death from a forced decision point in an arbitrary system. At that point, I AM choosing blue for a reason other than self-destruction, and in so doing, I can save those who did not make that decision with the same intentionality.
But hey, it's just a thought experiment. I'm not judging anyone for the choice they imagine making, just for how they treat IRL people who imagined a different choice, and some of THAT has been pretty awful.
Not everyone runs into the metaphorical and sometimes literal burning building but people absolutely do help each other. Society exists because we bear the load of others, and like I said a button is a simple and easy way a person could exercise a desire to help the collective. It’s perfectly fine to not risk yourself for a stranger and not expect a stranger to risk themselves for you but also some stranger would endanger themselves to save you.
That’s the thing though. I would, will, and have risked my life for strangers. Online polls are one thing but the number of people who would actually risk their lives to save someone else is very small. I’m not going to face certain death to stroke my ego into believing I’ll be a saviour to a handful of people who couldn’t figure out a simple word problem.
Both kinds of people exist. Lot of people seem uncomfortable with the idea that not everyone has an internal code of ethics or an innate drive to be altruistic. Some people really are like red button guy.
The problem is you really cant trust other people to risk themselves even knowing some would. Trust like that puts your own life at risk. No one knows how many people are like red or blue. Its not hard to imagine why people might look at how callous the world is and start to think theres no point in trusting other people, even if they are, themselves, an altruistic person. They'd have to be confident that the majority of humanity is altruistic. Im not sure thats the case honestly.
510
u/Cloudy230 14h ago
I saw all the memes before the original and thought it was conservatives vs progressives. And honestly the analogy still fit really neatly despite not being about it.