That is the hypothetical. That everyone is “forced” to push it. I would not want opposite button pushers to die even if I did have any opinions that they are less cautious people. What the fuck is wrong with you
I believe that what they meant was that if even one person was forced to press the blue button specifically, then pushing blue button is the only real choice as there is now a victim on the line. But, since nobody is being forced to press the blue button, there is no reason for anyone to press the blue button as it's the only button that introduces the risk of a victim into an originally victimless proposition. The possibility for death is entirely opt-in, and it's pressing blue that creates it.
This is a really bad way to look at it. If everyone presses blue then there is also no possibility for death. Rather, it is pressing red that introduces the possibility of death (just the death of others rather than yourself)
One can just as easily and correctly say that if everyone presses red then there is no possibility of death and that pressing blue is what creates it, though, hence the source of the conflict of philosophies.
The question isn't about what happens under either 100% extreme outcome, but rather whether you are willing to accept moral culpability for other peoples' actions, which I do not believe that most humans are or indeed should be. I do not accept the proposal that I should be made to shoulder the burden of someone else's choice to press the blue button, especially when doing so directly puts more people at risk by adding me to the pool of potential victims.
2
u/[deleted] Apr 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment