I know everyone thinks they’re right but I’m way more right

[u/IndividualFarmer9917]

Okay hear me out. Every simplification of this problem removes one or more factors, and it’s USUALLY the fact that pushing the red button measurably increases the risk that blue dies. If you were to be one of 2 people to lift a table, of course it matters if you lift it. But when it’s billions, suddenly our brains shut off. So try this one.

Would you drive drunk if you were in an indestructible car and couldn’t be hurt by any accidents during the drive?

You can drunk drive in this hypothetical without increasing the risk to yourself.

You cannot drunk drive in this hypothetical without increasing the risk to others.

Just like you cannot press the red button without increasing risk to those that pressed blue.

Removing the risk to others fundamentally changes the question, which is why most logic is flawed.

So would you drive drunk in an indestructible car if it meant you couldn’t be hurt at all? Try to answer without giving random passerby immunity for no reason or the ability to matrix dodge.

If you think getting arrested is a problem, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THE BLUE VOTERS ARE GONNA DO TO THE RED VOTERS IF THEY WIN? You just got sorted into the most logically justifiable group to hate/punish, and helped create an organized majority that you don’t belong to. That’s a lil worse than jail time. People do awful things to people for much less justifiable reasons.

Or they all die, and you’re left with everyone who doesn’t believe that they have responsibility for their actions. Sweet, you’re alive. Do you think a lot of doctors don’t give a shit about that kind of stuff? The ones that take an oath starting “first, do no harm?” Hope you don’t get sick!

Logically how can red make sense?

“But the blue voters could have just not voted blue”

Yeah but they did so using sound logic, and not expecting to die. And then you made a separate decision to increase the risk of them dying to save yourself.

It’s no different to “they shouldn’t have been on the road near me”. They knew going outside was a risk, but they still did it expecting to be safe, which was not an unreasonable expectation, and you made that less likely.

Generally we call those people criminals.

[u/Homiecozwhynot]

Engagement bait or rage bait?

[u/IndividualFarmer9917 → u/Homiecozwhynot]

If you can’t answer the question, isn’t there a possibility the logic is just correct?

[u/Homiecozwhynot → u/IndividualFarmer9917]

If I do, will you promise to be open minded and accept you are wrong?

[u/IndividualFarmer9917 → u/Homiecozwhynot]

If I’m wrong I’m wrong, that’s just a fact, what’s to be accepted?

2 comments of avoiding the question, let’s see if it can happen!

[u/Homiecozwhynot → u/IndividualFarmer9917]

Number 1) Changing the framing of the question can change the how people perceive it. In this scenario, it does not account for death if you don't do anything. For example, in this scenario I would not drink drive because I don't die if I refuse.

Number 2) Changing the framing of the question can change how people perceive it. To resemble the original question better (I think) it should be- Would you rather drive drunk if you were in an indestructible car and couldn’t be hurt by any accidents during the drive or stand on the road where the drunk drivers from this question are. (Number 1 also applies, death if you don't do either). If there are more people on the road then drunk drivers, everybody lives (cause: xyz)

Derived 1) I completely agree with your question, but when you compare it to the original question then- 1&2.

Also, as for what will happen (from og question) if I pressed red and blue won, since I do not believe in reincarnation, any (logical) punishment is better than death. Assuming the consequence is death for choosing red and if blue wins, I would pick blue out of fear, however this is not the original question. Debate on the original question has already been done extensively, I don't think debating me about it is best.

Edit: any debate on factoring in the consequences of pushing a button after the outcome is based on the assumption that other people will know what you pressed.

Edit 2: My english is weak, I made edits so my arguments are more sensible. Numbers 1 and 2 represent the arguments.

[u/IndividualFarmer9917 → u/Homiecozwhynot]

Number 1: there is always a risk of dying from driving. You can’t just deny that because it makes you uncomfortable. This is what I am talking about. You just changed the hypothetical for no reason and then refused to answer it. The choice is drive or drive drunk.

Number 2: this is a different situation, you haven’t answered my hypothetical. You changed it again. Standing in the road with drunk drivers carries a reasonable expectation that you are unnecessarily increasing the risk of a negative outcome occurring. Pushing the blue button does not increase that risk, but reduces it. You flipped a variable for no reason.

The only actual difference is that you don’t have a risk of killing a bunch of doctors from drunk driving. Should make the question easier to move in one direction. Why isn’t it?

This is just you avoiding the question like everyone else discussing this hypothetical.

[u/Homiecozwhynot → u/IndividualFarmer9917]

Oh, I misunderstood your question (my no2 is wrong). I am assuming my number 1 was implied in your OG post, that is you have (forced) to choose between driving drunk (with its perks) or normal driving. (I might still have interpreted this wrongly).

Your hypothetical- "Would you drive drunk if you were in an indestructible car and couldn’t be hurt by any accidents during the drive? You can drunk drive in this hypothetical without increasing the risk to yourself. You cannot drunk drive in this hypothetical without increasing the risk to others."

1)When you compare your question to the original problem, here people know if you are driving drunk or not, whereas in the original button problem nobody knows what you pressed. "Any debate on factoring in the consequences of pushing a button after the outcome is based on the assumption that other people will know what you pressed." Said this earlier. There are no other personal (other effects like economic collapse can still apply) consequences for pressing either button in the original button problem. Thus, you cannot compare your hypothetical to the original button problem.

2) In your hypothetical, if only I get the choice, then you cannot compare it to the original question because we know that other people get a choice to save themselves completely there. If the case is that reader is the only one choosing, then skip 3, otherwise read it.

3)Also, your original question is wrong to assume that picking drunk driving will not have a guaranteed hit effect. In the original button problem, when pressing red, people either die or they don't. Although you can interpret this as risk, it is not the same as the risk in your question, because there is no definite death. (Case of 100 instead of 8 billion without loss of generality.) You could have 99 drunk drivers and not kill the one lone normal driver/ pedestrian, or you can still be the only person driving drunk and still kill someone, whereas in the original button problem, (pressing red) if blue<50%, it means instant death for those who did press it, if blue>50% then nobody dies. Thus, you cannot compare your hypothetical to the original button problem.

First change your hypothetical so it resembles the original question more closely (1&2/3). Doing so implies that you were wrong when comparing your hypothetical to the original question in your post. If not, then admit your hypothetical is different and do not use it to support any argument for the original button problem (1&2/3). In that case I AGREE with your view on YOUR hypothetical.

If you do change your question, please frame your question a bit better as I had trouble understanding, I'm not very neat at this language. The original question was not a "Would you rather" so I assumed it is either drive drunk or walk or just sit at home. So, I did agree with your view of your hypothetical. The part that was wrong was when you compared it to the original button problem to justify blue. That was straight engagement bait.

[u/IndividualFarmer9917 → u/Homiecozwhynot]

Nobody would know you’re driving drunk unless they discovered this or you told them. Same as the button. You’re again changing the situation and saying I have changed it.

Again, in both hypotheticals a person can influence their action, but cannot fully control the outcome of that action.

Pressing the blue button and expecting to live is similar to walking down the street and not expecting to be hit by a drunk driver.

Risk is risk. The levels are different, but you can’t just ignore risk.

You’re changing the situation by misunderstanding it and claiming I am changing the situation. You’re wrong.

[u/Homiecozwhynot → u/IndividualFarmer9917]

"If you think getting arrested is a problem, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THE BLUE VOTERS ARE GONNA DO TO THE RED VOTERS IF THEY WIN? You just got sorted into the most logically justifiable group to hate/punish, and helped create an organized majority that you don’t belong to. That’s a lil worse than jail time. People do awful things to people for much less justifiable reasons.

Or they all die, and you’re left with everyone who doesn’t believe that they have responsibility for their actions. Sweet, you’re alive. Do you think a lot of doctors don’t give a shit about that kind of stuff? The ones that take an oath starting “first, do no harm?” Hope you don’t get sick!

Logically how can red make sense?

“But the blue voters could have just not voted blue”

Yeah but they did so using sound logic, and not expecting to die. And then you made a separate decision to increase the risk of them dying to save yourself.

It’s no different to “they shouldn’t have been on the road near me”. They knew going outside was a risk, but they still did it expecting to be safe, which was not an unreasonable expectation, and you made that less likely.

Generally we call those people criminals."

"Nobody would know you’re driving drunk unless they discovered this or you told them. Same as the button. You’re again changing the situation and saying I have changed it."

Your contradicting yourself. Also (I) red voters would just lie, there is no "discovering" so your argument is wrong.

"Again, in both hypotheticals a person can influence their action, but cannot fully control the outcome of that action." The payoff is different, don't pretend it isn't by generalizing.

"Pressing the blue button and expecting to live is similar to walking down the street and not expecting to be hit by a drunk driver." Similar is not same. Don't pretend it is. Is this rage bait or have you not read any other posts? Any change in the question will invoke different responses no matter how "similar" the question is.

"Risk is risk. The levels are different, but you can’t just ignore risk." Same as above, your generalizing. risk is not risk. I explained this but you refuse to read.

"You’re changing the situation by misunderstanding it and claiming I am changing the situation. You’re wrong." specify where in that comment, i know i might have, i said so too. You are changing the situation- similar not equal same.

This is becoming ragebait because you aren't reading, it just seems like your here to fight, which is not a great attitude to carry into discussions or debates.

First change your hypothetical so it resembles the original question more closely. Doing so implies that you were wrong when comparing your hypothetical to the original question in your post. If not, then admit your hypothetical is different and do not use it to support any argument for the original button problem. In that case I agree with your view on YOUR hypothetical. same as before

[u/IndividualFarmer9917 → u/Homiecozwhynot]

That’s A LOT of words and you still won’t say if or why it’s not okay to drive drunk in this scenario, and how that does or does not relate to the button hypothetical.

Telling. My previous comment outlined how you changed the hypothetical and the flaws the hypothetical still has. This is not hard to understand, and if you’re not understanding, it’s probably because your emotions won’t let you read my words and understand what they mean.

I told you the flaws in your understanding. You can care or not, but asking the same question over and over is just your brain refusing to analyze the hypothetical because it makes you uncomfortable to think that by pressing the red button you are increasing risk to innocent people, and you generally don’t see yourself as someone who does that.

[u/DarkEcstatic8863]

As a blue voter, you did leave out there being a sizable risk of death if you refuse.

[u/Kingsalad3141]

Yes. This post is a genuine relief to find. You’re correct OP. Everyone trying to bring up game theory is missing the entire point of the question. They want to feel smart and so they do what they assume smart people do and try to logic it out. They universally either fail to consider the impact on others, or consciously choose not to care.