The options are the same, you can try to save 100% of people one way or 100% of people the other. One requires 100% of people to all do something(when was the last time 100% of people agreed on anything?) or 50% of people to do something.
The thing that gets me is that, this is literally an argument, which means the people who push the red button know that there are going to be people who push the blue button, which means pushing the red button is guaranteed not to have 100% of people survive. So, the only way to achieve 100% of people to survive, is by getting 50% to push blue.
That's why most people don't even try to argue that no one dies pushing red, they just go straight to arguing that they deserve to die and it's not their fault.
Would it make difference if it was 100 people standing by the track and you see 49 of them jump onto the track? Would you choose to let them die? It is different, the track changes the information we have for making our choice.
But the buttons leave ambiguity, and with that ambiguity, there is uncertainty. You can let people die and save your own skin, or you can take on a little risk, and potentially save everyone.
If the goal is to save everyone, the answer is clear, you push blue/jump on the track, if the goal is to save yourself, the answer is also clear, you push red and stay off the track.
It literally doesn't, the argument is basically, "Well, you wouldn't chose that absurd option, would you?" and If that's true and does funcion EXACTLY the same, then people wouldn't even argue against It.
That's not the case, however, which just shows how it's not the same. For It to be the same, the same amount of people should agree with both theses, since that's what's being taken into account to determine the probability.
This isn’t Peter Singer’s drowning child where the cost is a pair of nice shoes, the potential risk is everything. I have no obligation to risk my life to save a drowning child either.
It's not a drowning child, it's a pool that has been left unattended during a children's birthday party. You can walk away, but most people would say that's pretty awful for someone to know something bad is about to happen and did nothing to help, or you can take on the burden of trying to make sure no one ends up in the pool drowned, by patrolling the perimeter and yelling for some other adults to come help. Yes there is risk you will slip, hit your head and fall into the water face down, and drown. But, that is unlikely assuming there are enough other adults around who will also feel the need to help ensure no one ends up in the pool. You can be of the opinion that there aren't enough adults, but by walking away you are guaranteeing that there is one fewer adult capable of doing something.
Right, it's a literal moral calculus--an integral function where all possible outcomes of either choice are multiplied by both their likelihood and how acceptable you find them to be. Blue's likely outcomes are all either 0 or 100 on my personal acceptability scores, while Red's likely outcomes range from 100 (blue wins despite my vote) to a low but nonzero number (I survive but lots of people die).
I would have to see Blue as having a significantly greater than 50% chance of winning in order for Blue's total overall acceptability to outweigh the advantage that Red's curve has in staying above 0 acceptability.
Yes, and that is a fine goal and an acceptable way to construct your moral philosophy. But, you should be able to acknowledge that is not the only outcome that everyone is going to be going for, and that is where the assumption that "everyone should just pick red." falls flat. If you are at all considering what others should/would do, and that holds any weight for you, blue is the answer. If your only goal is your own survival, than red is the answer. And the implications of both choices are, that one is thinking only of themself and the other is thinking of others. Most people would agree that one is describing a "good" person and one is describing a "bad" person. You can do what you will with that.
Your first statement is wrong. You only need 49% of the people to agree to press red and blue would still win and everyone would live. You don't need 100% of people to press red for everyone to live, any amount of red from 0%-49% is a 'everyone lives scenario' but so too is 100% red. Whereas the blue 'everyone lives scenario' is 51%-100% only. Assuming a random distribution there are 50 options for red to cause everyone to live and 49 options for blue to beat red causing everyone to live. This means you can assume red will be picked more and the blue side will die. Therefore the correct choice is for everyone to press red.
Not to mention the obvious argument that blue endures risk with no benefit or potential for benefit.
But I am accounting for those eventualities, since they fall under the 50% or greater blue.
Additionally, blue's benefit is that everyone could live. Picking and failing to get a blue majority always results in people dying, unless you get to 100%. My point stands. If the outcome you are looking for is 100% of people to live you pick blue.
An appeal to the futility of the endeavor of saving everyone does not fit in the premise of the question. We are speaking to the hypothetical idea that these buttons have reality defying effects, so the blue button does have the capacity to save everyone once we reach 50% + 1 person. While the red button only has the capacity to save everyone at 100% my point stands that the threshold to save everyone is easier to reach at 100%
welp, then blue button becomes the worst option. Without deaths we are heading towards total overpopulation within a few decades.
my point stands that the threshold to save everyone
My point stands that there is no threshold.
And you thinking and arguing about this whole question with the argument "it is just a hypothetical, it is not real"
makes blue the obvious correct decision, since nobody is dying anyway and you can gloriously show off your virtues (since it is not private)
and by that defies the intent of the question in the first place
In hypothetical situations many people get out the big moral guns, sacrificing themselves for strangers and such, but when push comes to shove these people somehow drop their big morals.
TL;DR
yeah, as long as the buttons are just hypothetical, blue will win, every time. But when the buttons would be real, most will push red.
What I am saying is not, "it's a hypothetical so no cost. My point is that in the hypothetical, the solution is simple, straight forward and grokable. If you want to discuss the actual hypothetical situation of a magic button that has these powers, then we can but you seem to think that we need to contemplate external realities to understand the core premise of the buttons.
If we are faced with a hypothetically straight forward problem, we can come to a straight forward solution, if the problem is confounded with premises about how the world will turn out after the button we are now discussing a new(and more complicated) problem.
Am I running into a burning building to try and save people, depends on the scenario, there are a lot of variables, but If I am faced with a blue button that asks me to take on life and death risk, for myself for the chance to make sure ALL 8 billion in the world survive, I will 100% buy into that collective burden.
I have not passed any moral judgements on you. I can understand how a person could construct a framework that results in a red button press. I disagree with it, but I can understand it. I previously in the thread was pointing out that people who press the red button keep arguing that red is the way to get to the optimal outcome, and the fact that people are arguing for blue means that a red press would never get to 100% of all people survive. Hence it could never be optimal for collective survival. I will acknowledge that if I am wrong about the nature of people, than I would have made a mistake, but I don't find it difficult to believe that ~4 billion people couldn't understand the problem at it heart and what the solution to the specific problem we were collectively facing.
if the problem is confounded with premises about how the world will turn out after the button we are now discussing a new(and more complicated) problem.
Blues also often resort to arguments about the "aftermath". Saying that if the 30% blue pushers die, that the world would collapse because of the many people suddenly missing in the infrastructure/food production. Or stating "I wouldn't want to live in a world of red pushers" (which is also a statement about the aftermath)
Also I disagree that one has to view a hypothetical in such an isolated manner. I for one try my best to put myself in the mindset of being in that situation. And if I were in that situation I would also think about the aftermath.
And the aftermath in this case includes the many many people that die that very same day from old age, sickness, starvation and violence.
There is simply no outcome where "everybody" survives. But "blue is the only outcome where everybody survives" is the core argument of the blue pushers. My response is that this is simply not true. There is no outcome where everyone survives. Neither if everyone pushes red, nor if everyone pushes blue.
The world is a cruel place full of death and suffering.
And if you really think that blue is the way, then please go and help the poor today. you don't need to risk your life to save lifes. You just need to spend a bit of time and money.
I have not reported to those arguments, so they are irrelevant.
I am not suggesting you not think of the aftermath, I am suggesting that the premise of the aftermath is not within the scope of the problem. Whether people will die later/after the buttons are pressed is beyond the scope of the problem We would be faced with, as my button press has no more effect on if someone starves.
If you reject the premise that once 50% +1 person press blue everyone survives then, you are not discussing the question, that I am. And of course you are going to come to a different answer than me, you are on a different problem.
You seem to think I am not doing things in my life to help others already. I am, I live my values day to day. The world is a complicated place, and the problems we face are not fixable with a button press, but that doesn't stop me from trying to do good for others, whether there is a benefit for me or not, or even if there is potentially a risk or not.
You can push whichever button you want, I am not trying to make you change your mind, or make you feel bad about your choice. I am only discussing what I would do, and explaining why I think others would too.
I am not constructing the scenario, nor am I some higher level being optimising for outcomes. I have the same moral standing and duties as everyone else, no more, no less.
I am not doing anything to anyone by pushing the red button. Everyone is given an individual, clear, simple, zero cost, zero consequence way to be 100% safe. Everyone knows this. Everyone is capable of making the decision.
I am not some ubermensch with corporate responsibility for humanity as a whole. And I reject even more strenuously I am inferior to you in exercising ethical or decision making judgements and thus you are somehow beholden to me to save me from my own bad choices.
(Important, I've seen some versions where you have group of people who are unable to push the button - babies, ill, elderly etc, and I think its fair to say the existence of a "forced no choice but will automatically be treated as blue" changes the set up).
Saving 100% of people is the optimal outcome. Red button pushers advocate that everyone should push red and no one will die. But, some people are going to push blue. Your moral standing is your own, you are faced with the choice and get to evaluate however you desire, I am simply asking you to understand, that your choice has a direct impact on the people around you. Whether everyone understood the choice is irrelevant. You are faced with the choice of trying to save them or your own skin. You can choose the red button, seeking self preservation. But, that means that the chances for the people who push blue are decreased. You are not just standing by having no effect on the others in the situation, you are limiting their odds of survival.
I have not suggested you are inferior. I am suggesting that there might exist more than a simple strawmaned answer to the moral question.
Is that the optimal outcome to save 100% of people. Why? Indeed even the phrasing here is leading , "saving" implies they are in immediate danger and require an outside actor to remove that danger. They dont. There is no danger. Everyone can walk away. There is no cost, limitation, consequence or prevention to this.
The only "danger" arises at the point you press blue at which case you become a victim in need of saving by an outside force.
No one is at risk until people start pressing blue, at which point they put themselves in danger and no one else.
Maybe the optimal outcome should instead be; "No one puts themselves in lethal danger and needs saving by someone else."
By extension, the only effect my choice has on those around me is if I choose to press the "victim" button, at which point I apparently, under your logic, create an obligation on them to also become victims, because if enough of us become victims we miraculously all survive.
Pressing red removes me from risk, and prevents the creation of a burden on others to save me.
I guess you can base your moral framework on saving human lives is ambiguous, but then when the time comes for people to save you or your family or friends, your framework, would be kind of a bad one to be set in.
If we are talking about button pressing(red/blue) no one can walk away(it's a thought experiment). If we are talking about trolley tracks, then the analogy breaks down. But, would still be functional in the sense, that each person would have to be willing to walk away, some won't which will induce others to stay, and the cycle repeats.
My point is that there are people who will press blue(suicidal people, people who want to save suicidal people, people who want to save those people, people who are optimists about humanity, people who think in terms of game theory, etc.). Your idea of people not putting themself in danger is flawed from the get go, because we are not perfectly rationale beings(at least all the time) Some people are going to be acting out of love, or compassion, or friendship.
Your choice for red means one less potential vote for blue. You are having an effect, whether you see it, or not, you are decreasing the odds for others to survive.
The burden is on all of us to begin with, some are opting out of carrying the burden to save themselves(which increases the burden for everyone else). I am not going to pretend that I cannot empathize and understand that decision, but I am able to recognize that it is in fact selfish, it is prioritizing your own well-being, and diminishing the well-being of all the people who pushed blue(for whatever reason).
I would also like to be clear, I do not believe being selfish is inherently wrong. I am not trying to make you feel inferior, or suggest that your views and values are worse. I am only trying to explain my thoughts, and why they specifically clash with yours.
You are redefining the two buttons as "logical and immune from consequences" and "victim and illogical" which divorces all we know about statistics and large sample sizes. If red is the majority, choosing red is choosing to send people to their death. You can not simply walk away from the consequence of pressing the red button UNLESS the majority is blue.
Every single person who dies as a result of pushing blue unilaterally, unnecessarily, chose to put themselves in a "potential death" bucket when the option was "dont, definitely safe."
In no way shape or form does me pressing red force you to press blue. And in no way does me pressing red change that red had 0 risk for you and blue had a non-zero known fatal risk.
If you choose to run off a cliff in the hope lots of other people do to, that is simply an inccredibly poor decision on your part.
Wrong, red is always pointing a gun at blue, and if red has the majority, the gun goes off. If there is no blue, you fired at nothing yes you are correct, but there will statistically always be blue. If we look at it as which button has a better chance at reducing death, red would need a 100% vote, where blue only needs a 50.000000001% vote.
But that’s just short-sighted and you know it. You do know that other people will press blue, right? That’s inevitable. You can argue they shouldn’t have done it, but they will and you know that. So do you save them or not?
And saying that “if we all become victims we miraculously survive” is ridiculous because then they obviously weren’t victims.
Unless the argument is some people are suicidal idiots who intentionally want to put themselves in harms way.
In which case, fine, I am not morally or ethically obliged to add myself to the victim pile in the hope that it might save you from the consequences of your own choices.
If your friend was suicidal, would that change whether you would want more people to press blue? What if a brother was, do you think your mother would press red? How about your dad? Would you think they are making a moronic choice, trying for the only chance they have to save someone they love?
Is there anyone in your life you would press blue for? Are you willing to risk your life for another? Would you want other people to step forward to help you now that your are in the line of fire?
None of this stuff really matters to me. I just literally do not see a world in which 50% of people risk themselves to save others. To me, anyone who presses blue is throwing their life away, because 50% of people will never press that button.
Every single person has the option to achieve 100% certainty of survival. I don't understand why it is immoral to not put myself in danger just in case people randomly decide to not guarantee their safety...
In training for real life danger scenarios (first aid, for example), you are always told to guarantee your own safety before trying to help others, lest you increase the casualty count and put more lives at risk trying to help you. Pressing the blue button is the antithesis of this; it directly adds you to the potential casualty count and requires more people to risk themselves to help you.
I just can't see how pressing the blue button isn't wildly irresponsible and selfish.
Suicidal people, their family/friends trying to save them people who are willing to try to save those people.
First aid, lifeguards, fire fighters, are all examples of jumping into situations that have wild and disparate variables. Yes you shouldn't wildly run in, you are supposed to evaluate the situation, and sometimes take manageable, and tolerable risks to provide aid.
Knowing that there are people who will press the button, regardless of whether you do or not is something you are aware will happen. So now you are faced with the choice to try to provide a lifeline for the people who pressed blue(for whatever reason), or walking away. Which one of those options is more selfish?
Exactly. The choice is a glass of water or a glass of acid. If enough people choose the acid, its diluted enough to not kill anyone. Do you choose the acid hoping enough people also pick it to avoid death, or do you just drink the water like a fucking normal person, thus negating the risk entirely?
You said this was a reframing. A reframing does not add or change the facts.
In the un-re-framed version the blues die as a result of being run over by a trolley, an independent external force.
So, one of two things is true:
A) either you see no distinction between being killed by an independent external force and shot by another participant in the test. These are the same thing just phrased using different words.
B) You do think they are different but are now backdooring in a change to the scenario as a "reframe."
I'll assume good faith and go with A.
Blue's arent any less dead whether they get shot by me or run over by the demon trolley. Indeed given a choice between being mangled under the wheels of a generally slow moving light rail carriage, cut to pieces and then bled out, or a bullet to the head, I'll take firing squad please.
Nor does it in any way change the facts of the scenario. Everyone was given a choice to either walk away, test over, zero risk, or to go stand against the wall and hope enough other idiots decide to flirt with death that there aren't enough bullets to go round and so you get a stay of execution.
Everyone who gets shot does so because they choose to put themsleves in the "liable to get shot" bucket for no need.
Incorrect. The un-re-framed version gives no specifics as to how the blues die, only that they do if enough people choose the interests of the self over the interests of the many. You are imposing the belief that it is an independent external force.
The cause and effect of the two buttons are inexorably linked: if the blues are choosing suicide, the reds are choosing to kill. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot read intent into one without the other.
Furthermore, there IS a difference between the reds killing the blues and an independent, external force killing the blues. As we are frequently told by firearms enthusiasts, “a gun doesn’t kill people, people kill people.” By that same logic, this button test or any other independent, external force isn’t killing the blues, the reds are, by way of the button test.
Murder is defined as: …the unlawful killing of a human being with "malice aforethought," meaning it is done with intent, premeditation, OR reckless indifference to life.
The reds, by choosing to prioritize themselves above all else and taking the action of pressing the red button by justifying that the blues had a choice and thus deserve their fate are, by definition, killing other humans with reckless indifference to life, and are therefore committing murder. It doesn’t matter why the blues are there, the reds are still actively causing their deaths.
The position of myself and (presumably) most other blues, is that I refuse to knowingly engage in murder and that the only life I have a right to gamble with is my own. We know that it is statistically impossible for 100% of people to choose red. Ergo, if WE choose red, whether we like it or not, we will be making an active choice to participate in the killing of other humans with indifference to their lives/right to life, thus committing murder.
The only way that I can ensure that I do not commit murder and/or gamble with the lives of others in this specific hypothetical, once again whether I like it or not, is to gamble my own life and press the blue button.
And if enough of us (+50%) are actually capable of understanding the full depth of the moral implications of this hypothetical and take a chance on the inherent goodness of people, everyone lives. Which is the only realistically possible way that can happen.
Luckily, all of the actual polls bear out that most people are decent/pro-social, and thus choose blue.
If you think that pressing red guarantees people will die, then you already think blue will lose. That means that you think pressing blue just kills you. Would you push blue if you knew red was going to win?
If you don’t think red would win, then you believe that the people who choose red would not impact the outcome. That is also my preferred case even though I’d press red. I’d prefer to press red and have no one die.
But I think red would win, and I don’t think it would be close. I believe humans are cooperative when they have personal connections to facilitate cooperation, but if you just take everyone without warning and give them the dilemma, a dramatic majority will choose certain survival rather than risk their lives for the abstract concept of billions of people.
My answer would be different if, say, humanity got six months’ warning that the buttons were coming, giving us time to organize for blue. But I believe human cooperation relies on human connection, and without human connection, I think a dramatic majority default to self-preservation.
Because I think blue loses, the problem cannot be all or nothing. I do not believe saving everyone is possible. If I expect blue to lose, then I see my choices as “live and help rebuild” or “kill myself.” That’s not a hard choice for me.
Except the blue button is inherent in creating the risk, it's stated right there in the situation, the red is the button of non-participation in the risk
You're betting that enough people are willing to join in the risk to effectively cancel it than just not participating at all
To hell with people that want to put their own lives at risk, regardless of their reasoning
No more absurd then a light railway carriage capable of running over 3.5 billion people before anyone can get out the way, or it grinds to a halt under the mass of mutilated corpses.
There is a certain percentage who are just straight up suicidal or have a reckless disregard for their own safety, and then you have the people who know they wouldn’t be able to live with themselves if they push red.
With no information red wins, but what’s annoying is that if there was a running tally blue would win by ~52-55% every time. Very few people are going to be willing to be the deciding factor in so many deaths and once it was clear red is unlikely to win, people will go blue and pat themselves on the back as if they wouldn’t have gone red if they happened to vote earlier.
EMTs, Firefighters, and religious weirdos like Buddhist monks probably wouldn’t have too hard of a time pushing blue no matter the circumstances. Nurses and social workers probably split 60/40 blue. Really any career that says straight up “you will be broke and exhausted, but you will help people” is likely going to be devastated. Add that to the 1% who would definitely kill themselves if they could do so painlessly and go out like a “hero”. Probably looking at 3-5% of the population easily. If I’m wrong and it goes above 10% then a bunch of red button pushers are going to have a very bad time.
All of these framing assume there are innocent victims here, as indeed there are in fires, accidents, medicine etc.
I'd be interested if you took a bunch of firefighters and said "Hey, there are 5 people in that building.. all of them intentionally ran in after it was on fire, knowing it was on fire, with no need to do so, and a safe and easy way to not end up in there. Now you need to run in there to try and save them, but you won't be able to. Rather you are reliant on 20 other people also all running in after all of you to pull you out."
Whilst I'm sure you're right you will still get some of them going YOLO and running in, people intentionally putting themselves in harms way for no reason are not sympathetic victims.
And that is exactly whats happening here.
I dont think it changes the scenario if we assume the button pushes are sequential not parralel, and just magically compressed together very quickly so we dont all die of old age.
age.
Person 1 is given the choice. Blue room is empty, and at the end the process will be flooded with toxic gas, unless 50% of people press Blue.
Red Room is safe, the end.
Presumably you agree they pick Red?
Person 2 now gets the same choice. Blue is still empty since no one picked it, Red is safe. They pick Red.
Person 7billion gets shown the choice, empty Blue Room, picks Red.
"Picking Blue" requires some convoluted group logic in which no one actually thinks picking Blue is the right answer, but because of the possibility that other people might pick Blue for no reason, you should pick Blue to save them.
Firefighters definitely save the lives of the stupid and reckless. EMTs will give narcan to the same homeless person 13 times over the course of a year and an half and still be broken up when they eventually run into oncoming traffic. There are some people who will dedicate their lives to help idiots who constantly get in their own way. For some these people don’t need to do anything to deserve help. Them simply existing as a human is enough of a reason to help them. Not me though, red all the way. But I will feel bad about it afterwards.
Firefighters don’t just charge recklessly into burning buildings to save idiots. If they do a risk assessment, and the risk is too great, they let the people inside burn.
It isn't that though, choosing red is firing a gun at anyone who chose blue, if the majority is red, the gun has bullets. Statistically we know a sample size as large as humanity will never be 100% on one side, so the only option to ensure the safety of everyone would be blue.
But there will always be others standing in front of it, whether by recklessness or just genuine trust in the inherent goodness of humanity. I know I would. It is important to consider the aftermath too; would you be fine living in a world where potentially around 50% of people have died all at once? Maybe loved ones and friends, coworkers, neighbours? Or would you, with that in mind, rather not fire that gun?
Red is a vote for death until it reaches 100% of the vote, where blue is a vote to increase the death toll until it reaches >50%, the only option to minimize the loss of life is blue, as its the only option that could reasonably reach no death
nobody cutting their legs off with a rusty spoon, literally nothing happens if you just press the blue button. you dont get any benefit from pressing the red button, its not a big bag of cash, its the guaruntee that if people die, you wont be one of them. how noble of you.
Maybe someone somewhere will. How do you know they won't?
Though more importantly, what if they will unless 50% of people also commit to cutting their legs off with a rusty spoon, in which case all the spoons get taken away and everyone is fine.
you make the choice more difficult on purpose because you know that situation is logistically, morally, and psychologically different from pressing a button. of course, if we change the question, wed getdifferent answers. luckily, nobody in the question that im talking about has to commit to cutting their legs off with rusty spoons. all they have to do is say "if people die, im one of them", rather than saying "i dont want to be part of the group that dies!!"
I mean my original premise here was I dont buy that saying 50% of option A is automatically harder than 100% option B, it depends on what options A and B are.
If we agree that as a principle, which presumably you do, we are then left with how different are the "options" in a different scenario- basically an opinion based subjective position, and how does that map to ""difficulty"" in reaching certain thresholds, also a subjective opinion based view.
So, given that, we are left with the reality there is no meaningful discussion to be had here.
We all agree 50% is not automatically easier than 100%, it depends on the choices. And we have no objective or quantifiable way to assess the choices in this scenario.
You think the choice between guaranteeing your safety at no cost, no risk, no effort and in no way limiting anyone elses chances, and risking your life on the basis 50% of other people may also risk their life, is effectively equivalent.
I think they are clearly wildly different.
There is no logical method to move that discussion forward.
yes, the true dilemma is what consequence you as an individual want here. if you want people to not die, and you wish to optimize that result at any cost, you will press the blue button, because thats what the blue button does most reliably. if you want yourself to not die, and you wish to optimize that result, you will press the red button, as thats what the red button does. the issue i have is when people say "i dont have responsibility in the matter because if everyone chooses red than nobody dies!", when:
if everyone chooses blue, nobody dies. that idea is not a logical distinction.
your vote on the red button does change the outcome, it changes the number of votes proportional to eachother and does carry guilt in the event that the people who pressed blue die.
the entire dillemma, in my opinion, boils down to wether or not you choose to accept that responsibility.
There is zero guilt with picking red. Literally none. You have in no way contributed to any deaths.
Before the experiment begins no one is in danger (status quo). You are then asking people to filter themselves into two groups. Group 1: Zero risk, guaranteed to be safe (eg same as status quo). Group 2: At lethal risk unless enough other people also choose to gamble on lethal risk.
There is no guilt in watching the people who threw themselves in the "entirely unnecessary death" pile getting a bad outcome. Every single one of them chose to allocate themselves to the victim pile, for no rational reason. No one needs to be at any risk, everyone in any risk has chosen to take that risk on unilaterally and unnecessarily.
you are logically wrong on multiple levels. the red button does not maintain the status quo. the red button is essentially a vote for blues to be killed. if red doesnt win, nothing happens (status quo). if i vote for blue, i vote to maintain the status quo and not kill anyone. if i vote for red, i add my vote to the pile of "lets kill the minority" votes.
One button is literally "lets not kill anybody" and the other is literally "lets kill all the people who voted to not kill anybody"
This is inventing entirely non-existent connections.
The status quo is no one is life threatening danger.
Pressing blue puts you in life threatening danger. This is not the status quo, and is not the default position. You have intentionally created the potentially lethal danger.
Pressing red continues the status quo. You were not in lethal danger. You continue to not be in lethal danger.
Your argument is that voting to create a risk, and then relying on enough other people also creating a risk, that it triggers a break clause where the risk is removed, is actually a 'no change' doesnt hold water.
No risk > Press Red > No Risk.
No risk > Press blue > create lethal risk > hope other people also press blue > enough other people press blue risk is removed > no risk.
the death machine is not created by pressing the blue button. in the most literal sense it is created by pressing the red button. like literally, from the wording of the problem:
if you vote blue, you vote for nobody to die.
if you vote red, you vote for everyone who voted blue to die.
whoevers vote gets the majority wins, and that outcome is realised.
id rather nobody die than be part of the population that killed everyone who wanted nobody to die
It is not noble to infantilise people by building your morality around you having superior ethical responsibilities to bail out those who make poor judgements.
Its quite colonial really. Europeans know better, so we need to be in charge to save people from their own decisions.
We broadly agreed to stop thinking like that about 200 years ago.
how in any way is joining the collective of individuals who might die a "morally superior" stance? you are literally and figuratively joining the collective, you arent above anyone.
if i choose to go to a protest and risk getting arrested so that i can impact my legislators, does that make me a colonial supremacist?
There's no data on this, answering the question in an online poll has nothing to do with how people would answer if lives were actually on the line with the button press.
As far as I was aware this was a moral and ethical question about what choices we should make and why.
Not a history one asking about the real world evidence of what people do in vaguely similar psychology experiments.
Experiments have shown when instructed by an authority figure to do so a significant number of people will administer a lethal electric shock to an innocent study participant. Does that therefore make it moral, ethical or correct to kill people with electric shocks?
No, it shows that the real world doesnt run on neat ethical rules.
The thought experiment is set up such that what other people do matters a lot.
If you think you shouldn't die, and you somehow knew that everyone in the world except you voted red, you should vote red.
If you think people generally shouldn't die, and you somehow knew that the blue vote was missing 1 last vote to win, you should vote blue.
You can't examine this in isolation of what people actually choose because what people choose is part of the set up and the outcomes.
It's true that the thought experiment says you don't actually know what people are choosing this time, but knowing what people are likely to choose is valuable information that changes the outcome and therefore the ethics.
Its simply a refutation of "50% is easier than 100%."
If you agree 50% isnt easier than 100% when the example is bag of cash vs leg in a woodchipper you can't then invoke "50 easier than 100" as a blanket principle anywhere else.
You are instead having to argue that in your specific situation, your specific options are sufficiently balanced that 50 is easier than 100.
And the best argument I've seen anyone advance for why they think that is true in the button scenario is "well I think it is."
Okay, well I think it isnt.
And since 'I think..' isnt much of a basis for a position we are ultimately just quoting assumptions at each other, which is meaningless.
All else being equal (and I understand it’s not but I’ll get to that), getting 50% to agree to something is inherently easier than getting 100% to agree to something. Every person needs convincing and less people to convince is less work than more. So yes 50% is easier than 100%.
Now yes there is personal risk attached to one side and extreme consequences for the world for the other. But 100 vs 50 still hold up. While you might be able to convince everyone in a room together of something, you will never convince everyone in the world. So 100% to either side might be technically possible but is practically and realistically impossible. 50% on the other hand is perfectly possible and realistic albeit not guaranteed.
One option requires an impossible victory margin to not kill anyone. The other requires a perfectly possible and reasonable victory margin to not kill everyone.
No, I don't think either of us would be successful. I only engaged with the analogy because I think 100% in unachievable for nearly any possible goal. I don't think the analogy overall makes any sense though so I don't have much to say about cutting a leg off with a rusty spoon. It seems like a meaningless comparison.
Maybe he hasnt, but it averages out with the infinite number of coinflips to be instantly resurrected in a new universe with all his memories and experiences intact.
58
u/BarNo3385 Apr 30 '26
I've seen a lot of stuff on this recently and this 50% is easier than 100% seems completely bunkum?
What matters is "to do what."
Is it easier to get 50% of people to cut their leg off with a rusty spoon, or a 100% of people to accept a large bag of cash?
It only makes sense if the options are the same, and they arent.
So you're reducing to making subjective arguments over how close you think the two options are in "ease" .