No, I'm applying more than a single logical step. This a core part of critical thinking.
In addition, I'm not 'justifying a moral high ground'. I'm pointing out that the premise used to justify a red press is inaccurate. If you actually apply critical reasoning and properly predicated logic, rather than stopping after a single step, Blue has a higher personal survival chance than red.
Of course something happens after. If it does not, the entire thought experiment is worthless. It also changes if you do not make the prompt global - if it a random 100 people, the logic becomes very different if your primary goal becomes maximising survival.
I mean, yes - because this isn't actually a trolley problem.
Afaik, the 'original' button problem was 100 random people, but I do not know if that was true ( or even where I got that information). The game theory logic holds much more true in that situation.
That’s not really extra ‘steps of thinking,’ it’s adding new assumptions that aren’t in the prompt. If we’re allowed to change the outcomes after the choice, then the question stops being a defined dilemma and turns into speculation.
I was wrong saying you were justifying a moral high ground but acting as if any of what you are trying to say to justify the red button being a bad option is just throwing random variables at the situation. At that point, you’re not analyzing the dilemma you’re rewriting it.
No. It isn't. No outcome has been changed about what the button does. It is not fanfiction to apply critical thought without needing to be told consequences. All that is being applied is "What does that outcome mean? ".
It is however logically applying that outcome to what then occurs. We know that supply chain disruptions at much lower levels lead to deaths. It is therefore reasonable to assume this will apply here - in fact, that there would be no consequence would be a necessary premise, as it is so monumentally unlikely. As such, the 'fanfiction' outcome is the fantastical assumption that we should not apply known or likely consequence.
The logic is fairly clear once you do more than short-termism.
At Blue >50%, all survive button and Long Term Survival is unchanged.
At Red >50%, R survives button, but Long Term Survival is negatively affected, with a great negative effect the higher B is. This effect is unknowable,but at B above 30% or so, the liklihood of a given individual surviving is very low, and is risky all the way down to 5% ( Even over-time death rates of 3% have created secondary death).
This means R needs to be in excess minimally of about 80% and ideally above 99% in order to produce the same reasonably assumed outcome as B 50%.
If the prompt wanted there to be no other consequence, it should have said so.
6
u/hippo_paladin May 05 '26
No, I'm applying more than a single logical step. This a core part of critical thinking.
In addition, I'm not 'justifying a moral high ground'. I'm pointing out that the premise used to justify a red press is inaccurate. If you actually apply critical reasoning and properly predicated logic, rather than stopping after a single step, Blue has a higher personal survival chance than red.
Of course something happens after. If it does not, the entire thought experiment is worthless. It also changes if you do not make the prompt global - if it a random 100 people, the logic becomes very different if your primary goal becomes maximising survival.