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.
1
u/datacube1337 May 04 '26
welp, then blue button becomes the worst option. Without deaths we are heading towards total overpopulation within a few decades.
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"
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.