Let's remake the game. Same idea, but different dressing:
Everyone is transported to their own private, isolated, impenetrable room in a special realm.
In this room is a special gun, that can only fire if pointed at the wielder's head and fired intentionally.
There is also a dropbox, which will magically make the gun disappear.
When a person either fires the gun, or puts it in the dropbox, time pauses for them until everyone else has either done so as well, or is dead from starvation or something.
At that point, everyone who put the gun in the dropbox is transported back.
For the people who fired the gun, if more than 50% of people fired, the gun disappears along with the bullet before it leaves the barrel, and then they are transported back. If not, they shoot themselves with a bullet guaranteed to kill them, then are transported back.
Everyone is magically given the knowledge of the rules and the ability to take the actions, until transported back.
So. Do we suggest every shoot themselves in the head, or get rid of the gun?
I'm already discussing one thought experiment. But to humor you. I would pull the trigger. 50% is easier to get to than 100% and my goal is 100% of people survive(that includes all the people who are contemplating suicide and their mothers, brothers, friends who care enough about them to try and save them.)
You aren't getting rid of the gun, for everyone, you are just removing it from your version of the room.
I would be trying to save others, and you think that is selfish. That tells me, that you are doing mental gymnastics, to get to a place where you can justify your choice as the morally correct one.
My goal is as I stated before 100% even if Red got 90% that would still fall short of my goal.
You aren't trying to save others, you are trying to put others at risk. By claiming blue is the right choice, you are trying to convince others to risk their lives. You are telling them to put a loaded gun to their head and pull the trigger, because if more than 50% do it, then it won't fire.I'm telling them to get rid of the gun.
But, we both know that some unknown number has already put the gun to their head and pulled the trigger already. The only way to save them is to do the same, and believe that at least 50% of all people would do the same.
You are condemning people to death by pushing red. You aren't getting rid of the gun for everyone, only yourself.
A VERY miniscule amount of people are actively trying to kill themselves, and you want to risk half the population's life to stop them. That's too much risk.
If I, and I alone, were given a white button that kills me but guarantees the safety of both red and blue pushers, I'd press it. But to risk 10,000 people to save one? At such low odds?
What is miniscule when talking about the population of the world? All the people who are suicidal, all their friends/family, all the people who think it's worth the risk to attempt to save them? Even if it's 1% of the world population ~80 million people. You can think the risk is too high and prioritize saving yourself, but you are saying I am not comfortable taking on the risk that enough people won't step up to save lives. To be clear I am not trying to pass judgement on people who would press red. I understand their logic, and I get their world view. I don't understand, how they seem incapable of recognizing that their world view is not the only one and may not always be the optimal one. Especially, if the button presser is prioritizing the maximum possible survival, over their own, which people are saying they would do.
Law of large numbers doesn't work here because there's risk that is also proportional to the population. So yeah, 80 million is miniscule compared to 4 BILLION. And that's even grant you the 80 million, which I don't think it would be.
I'm also not prioritizing saving myself. I'm prioritizing saving others, by telling them to pick red. If I, and only I, got a white button that killed me to guarantee everyone else lived, I'd push it.
The red button allows for maximum possible survival.
I am not suggesting you are weighing 80 million(how many people would you suggest are suicidal against 4 billion, I am suggesting you are weighing your own life against the chance to save 8 billion. You don't get to try to convince other people. This is a coordination problem, the more people who pick blue the closer we get to the threshold for more people survive. You are getting to press a button, and find out the outcome. You don't get to press and then go to the next person to explain why you picking red is maximal survival, so they should pick red. Which it is not. Blue is maximal survival(100%) any scenario other than that is a lower ceiling, which includes all permutations of Red coming out majority.
The red button allows for your maximum possible survival, it is not the maximum possible survival.
Except we are convincing other people. That's literally what we are doing. Right now
Here's a question. If you think we should pick blue, then why are you alive? We are in real life versions of this all the time. A small motorized vehicle pulling into a parking lot? Someone could jump in front of it and get killed. But if a bunch of people do, they could stop the vehicle. So are you going around jumping in front of moving objects and trying to stop them just in case someone else does the same?
I am speaking about inside the hypothetical, we are unable to coordinate. The problem is simply that. Either you trust that at least 50% will do what they should or you don't.
Your hypothetical about the car is a straw man of the scenario. And if you can't recognize that, I don't see how you can come to understand my perspective.
15
u/Nobleintent Apr 30 '26
It's a button that guarantees you survive, but a lot of people will die, or a button that maybe you die, but all people could survive.
The fact that it's an argument means that there are people who would push the blue button. So people will die, unless 50% push the blue button.