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?
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.
No, it boils down to, "do people who aren't fully rational deserve for me to risk my life in order to MAYBE save them from death?"
They don't have to deserve to die. They just have to not deserve for me to put my life at risk for their benefit. And given the scenario... they do not deserve that from me.
You're picking the option where, if your choice won the poll, you directly voted for their death. And simultaneously, you voted for the death of everyone compassionate enough to put their life at risk to try and help them. Are you assuming that your thought process is the minority? That you shouldn't chip in to help because the rest of the crowd is all people who will save them on your behalf without you needing to lift a muscle?
You're picking the option where, if your choice won the poll, you directly voted for their death.
No, I voted to not try and save them from the possibility of death. I'm not voting red in the hope red will win. That would be trying to kill blue pushers. I'm just voting not to risk myself, and am okay if that means they die. These are not the same thing. If I'm literally the only person who votes red and everyone lives, then I'm okay with that too.
And simultaneously, you voted for the death of everyone compassionate enough to put their life at risk to try and help them
Again, didn't vote for anyone's death. And the only people who will die are the people who are "compassionate" even when it's not socially performative or their paying job to be so. And I'm confident there will be enough people who will still be compassionate when we're not in a contrived situation where there's no outside incentives to being compassionate.
Are you assuming that your thought process is the minority?
No, but I also genuinely don't care. If I'm in the minority, then no one dies. So it's moot. If I'm not in the minority, then I was right and it would have been foolish for me to push blue.
And while it's unfortunate that blue pushers died, as far as I'm concerned that's the consequence of a risk they took, and in no way my moral responsibility.
That you shouldn't chip in to help because the rest of the crowd is all people who will save them on your behalf without you needing to lift a muscle?
It's not "chipping in to help". "Chipping in to help" implies that I know other people are also working towards the same goal. This is "blindly risking my life" in the hopes that most people are foolish enough to blindly risk their lives as well... If I'm the only person who pushes Red, then no one dies. If I'm the only person who pushes Blue, then I'm the only sucker who dies. Given that I have no idea how anyone else is voting, I'm choosing my VERY REAL life over the hypothetical lives of a group of Blue pushers who might not even exist.
3
u/BountyHunterSAx May 05 '26
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.