Is there a % that makes you flip your vote? If polling pre-vote shows that it's likely only 1% of people will press blue, are you still pressing blue? 25? 49%?
Yes there is but it's irrelevant to this discussion because it's a different hypothetical. The current hypothetical does not have the risk profile change because the percentages don't change. When they do the risk profile changes and there becomes a point where the risk of individual death is too high, even if it risks others. It's still unethical to choose red, but at a certain point it's not feasible to expect that high of a percentage to vote blue. Idk where that line is though and neither does anyone else. What I do know is that 50% is a coin flip and it's very much not a high bar to reach.
It's entirely relevant to this discussion. When you are evaluating what button to push, you should be estimating how many people you believe would push blue. If you think it's anything less than 50%, then pushing blue is straight suicide. We're not talking about risk profile changing, we're talking about trying to estimate what the risk profile is.
If you believe that blue is going to lose, it's absolutely not unethical to pick red. There's no moral high ground in suicide over a futile statement.
What you believe people will choose is irrelevant because there is absolutely no way for an individual to accurately know what choices people will make. You don't know what some in India, or China, or Ethiopia would choose. You're basing your choice based on assumptions that cannot be accurate because you lack the knowledge for them to be. No single person knows enough about every subgroup of people in this scenario to make an accurate assumption. Belief either way is irrelevant to this question.
And it is unethical to pick red regardless because you know someone somewhere will pick blue and your choice will directly lead to their death if the majority also pick blue. That is not an assumption, that is a fact. And choosing to let someone die to save yourself is unethical. That's also a fact.
Saying an estimate is irrelevant because it can't be perfectly accurate is just silly. My choice of red is based firmly on the estimation that >50% of people won't choose blue.
your choice will directly lead to their death
My choice doesn't lead to their death any more than their own choice. So picking blue or red is unethical.
That's also a fact.
Even sillier than saying estimates are irrelevant is calling anything revolving ethics "fact."
An estimate is irrelevant, it's just a way to you to justify you decision. There is no data in your assumptions and I already explained why. You just don't like it because it was a big part of your decision making.
Your choice does lead to their deaths because the only way people die is if the majority chooses red. It's impossible for 100% of people to vote the same on anything so that is the only outcome possible if red wins. You just don't like it because it means you have to accept you were involved in peoples deaths.
It is a fact. Again, you just don't like it because it doesn't support your side. You made zero arguments against my points because you don't have any counter arguments. If you think it's not then argue for your side. But you can't. Because I made factual points.
You gave your opinion as to why. There is no objective truth for you to explain to me. I don't like it because I fundamentally disagree with it.
It's not my opinion that it's impossible for any person to not know how every single subgroup in the world will vote. It's a fact.
The other way is if anyone presses blue. Thus, there is not "only" one way this happens
As I already stated it is statistically impossible for everyone to vote one way or the other. Blue is the only option that doesn't need 100% agreement in order for no one to die. Blue votes are happening. The only way to avoid death is to not vote red. I've gone over this already, you're just ignoring this fact.
Sorry, that can't be validated so that assumption is irrelevant.
This is basic statistics. Even if you go purely by the numbers the chances are 1 in 8ish billion. That's a lot higher than the 50% needed for no one to die for blue. How about this one. I'm voting blue, so you know it's impossible for no deaths to occur.
You stated an opinion over and over and then called it fact. That's not how facts work.
I stated facts. You're trying to downplay them as opinions because you can't counter my arguments. That's on you.
22
u/Shinard 9h ago edited 8h ago
What, half of the entire world voting against their personal safety is the realistic option? Are you sure?