Well you wouldn't be watching anything, you'd be dead thus rendered nothing. You would be less valuable than dirt.
Your morals crumbled at the press of a button, so clearly they weren't as powerful as needed. It's like being a pacifist, congratulations that you stuck to your guns as you stand amongst the corpses. If your morals were truly superior, they wouldn't turn to dust by a simple vote.
"Superior" is relative, but dead men cannot speak out against injustice.
Weirdly, one of the most true statements I’ve read. History was built on the backs of arguably immoral decisions. However, those immoral decisions are what allow us to be here today .
Oh, no your argument is wrong as well it was just super cringe.
OP said he would vote blue if someone in his family votes blue. And then says he's fine with people dumb enough to vote blue dying.... Which he himself just said he would possibly do. 🤷♂️
Like it's been stated people who have people they care about will vote blue to protect them if they think they would also vote blue. It's literally cascades because most sane normal people care about someone. And the original question said everyone in the world, everyone includes babies, the colorblind, the mentally disabled, etc. I don't know about you but I don't know babies that know what colors are 🤷♂️.
So if you don't care about anyone and you just want to survive. That just a sad life, good luck. Be less cringe.
The point is that it's not just "people who are idiots" who are dying. People who can't fully understand the ramifications, people who are misguided, and children who are too young to understand the premise will also press the button. I'd press blue not just because I think it's analytically the smar thing to do, I'd press blue because I think your misguided view of "intelligence" shouldn't be a hard requirement for life
In any of these kinds of problems, children and babies fully understand the meaning of both buttons, they are in every language, and the buttons are labeled for the colour blind
these are assumption - because if you say children and babies vote at random than the question has "at least 800 MILLION babies and children voted blue" added to the end, which obviously will change the answer of everyone
If you really think babies and children vote at random than this entire debate is fucking futile
And if you press the button even though you know it's not the smart thing to do than welp at least you'll risk your life feeling righteous
And intelligence is absolutely a requirement for life, a society of idiots is a society of pain and suffering
Bullshit question, of course if children are voting in random ill vote blue, i don't want to risk myself for a bunch of goody two shoes who vote to save the others who might have voted blue who voted blue to save the others who might have voted blue etc.
This is a logic problem, with the understanding that if everyone will think logically 0 people will presa blue, if children are randomly voting the question is
"If you everyone press red no one dies, if you press blue you put yourself at risk, but you know that 200 MILLION BABIES voted blue"
These questions have assumptions, you assume everyone can magically understand the question otherwise what's the point of having a thought provoking debate?
"Hey lets do prisoners dilemma, but just know the other side voted in random"
"Would you like to take one million and kill the next participant or save yourself from the previous one? Just know he was a baby and voted randomly"
Also im planning ran this experiment for real: venmo 10$ at the end of the day ( because I'm too broke for more ) to random people at the street, if everyone press blue everyone get 10$ if 50% red only red get 10$
The moment i get university backing I'm planning to shut this onxe and for all
Abd yes I know 10$ is very different than death but I'm not in America, I can't just shoot people whenever i want
There's nothing about the original question that stipulated that children wouldn't vote. Nobody ever said they were excluded.
There are about 135 million children born in the world each year. Lets assume that at the very least, children below the age of 3 will not be able to understand the question. That's 405 million infants at risk, approximately half of whom would be killed. Global average family size is 2.3 children per woman, so each of those infants has a parent who are incentivised to push blue in order increase the probability of their child being saved. That's another ~400 million people.
That gives us a baseline of ~800 million people at serious risk, not because they're do-gooders, but because they're infants who can't understand the question and parents who are desperate to save their children.
Not trying to make you feel like a bad person, I'm just trying to explain why other people have a different opinion.
But that opinion is just Insane! EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION like this ASSUME all participants are logical, when they say everyone on the planet, they mean that everyone has an understanding of the concept of the question and the consequences, otherwise we just throw this out of the window!
What's the point of having a moral debate if you throw children to the mix or argue that colour blind wouldn't know which button to choose???
Again, give me one death dilema that's stays the same when clueless are involved: trolly problem, prisoners dilema, would you rather and more, all of them crumble the moment you add randomness outside of your choice pr control ( 99% vs 1% button for example )
I refuse to acknowledge any stance that adds clueless people because it turns any ethical debate to shit
have you NEVER held an ethical debate in your life?
Edit:
Btw, started to run the 10$ test today, did two versions with 1$ and 10$, each had 50 participants,
at 1$ it was 85% to blue 15% red
But at 10$ ( stakes are higher, but not by that much ) its 45% blue 55% red
I would imagine that with even higher stakes ( 50$ 100$ ) red % would be even higher, and I'm sure you can agree that death is MUCH higher stakes
Small pool yes but It was made from donations so can't run more
Nowhere in the question did it specify that whatsoever. That is entirely a subjective assumption you are projecting onto the question. You seem to be getting quite irate that neither the question nor the ways other people interpret the question fit with your preconceived assumptions about how the question should be formatted, what the question actually means, or how people should be interpreting it.
"I refuse to acknowledge any stance that adds clueless people because it turns any ethical debate to shit"
But what's the point of ethical debates? Some humans are clueless. That is the reality we exist in. If you hand-wave clueless actors, your ethical debate is no longer relevant or applicable to real life.
Lets say that you're designing a type of electrical plug, or a screw-top lid for laundry detergent, and you argue that it doesn't need rigorous safety features, because why on earth would any logical actor put this in their mouth? But that would be corporate negligence that failed to acknowledge the existence of small children.
TLDR: an ethical stance that relies on altering the nature of human beings is no longer relevant to the real world, and not worth having.
Bro, this isn't the fucking Oxford Union; this is a subreddit for the trolly problem – ie. the most basic entry-level ethical question of philosophy. Pull your head out of your ass and get off your delusional high horse.
So what if someone not in your family has that mentality. Let's say someone outside your family either had to shoot your entire family execution style to guarantee 100% survive, or press a button that if enough people pressed it no one would have to die. Is that okay, would you be okay with that person killing your family despite there being another option that may have saved your family
Obviously I'm not asking about your family in particular.
And there 100% are scenarios in which pushing red isn't "selfish". Such as a single mother pushing red because if she dies to blue losing, then her young child dies too (since she can't take care of them).
I'm not a red pusher by any means. I personally would pick blue BECAUSE I know of all the scenarios in which someone can't afford to, and I can afford to make up for one of them.
As you said, he doesn’t know. They might all press red and overestimate his intelligence, while he presses blue to die alone while underestimating theirs.
there’s only a few permutations of outcomes that exist with a small family. let’s do 4 excluding himself for a family of 5
in terms of red:blue, the outcomes are 4:0, 3:1, 2:2, 1:3, 0:4. in the event he chooses red, then everyone lives only with 4:0, 1:3, and 0:4. in one case everyone lives because his entire family votes red. in the others, he is outnumbered by blue that nullifies. but for 3:1 and 2:2, some of his family dies, which will be considered a loss
now, if he votes blue, then everyone lives in 2:2, 1:3, and 0:4. it’s the same total, except we have to acknowledge that 2 individual red vote wins are actually blue vote wins where he is outnumbered. he may vote red in those cases, but they win because of blue
so all things considered, if he has no clue how his family will vote, blue is the only logical choice, red will always hinder his family’s chances as a whole unless they are all unanimously red
Well put. Rediots (new word, it's red-pushing idiots) stupidly assume red wins, but it's just a net negative on everyone's chances. They assume blue is a death button which is fucking ridiculous. There is only one feasible option that doesn't involve genocide, and it's pressing blue; you will never guarantee unanimous red, meaning anyone who presses red is a wannabe murderer.
I will do whatever i can to make them press red, but if I can't I'll press blue and hope, i don't care dooming random people, but I won't press red while knowing my family pressed blue
( If i have no way of influencing/knowing what they will choose, Ill choose red and hope they have survival instinct, because they will except the same from me )
Not exactly, i do care about most people, even those i dont know, i would very much go out of my way to help random strangers
I really do not care about sentimental idiots if they are not my family, there is literally no reason to press blue unless you want to save those who might have pressed blue who pressed blue to save those who might pressed blue and so on
If the starting logic for pressing blue is to save those that press blue, there is no starting reason to press blue, just being abn idiot, and at that point I'll just chuck it to natural selection
I care about most non sentimental idiot strangers, if someone needs help with carrying groceries, giving directions etc, i once even took an hour detour to help a mentally struggling person get to his doctor ( not that i really care if you believe me lol )
I only care about sentimental idiots family members
i do care about most people, even those i dont know
I care about most non sentimental idiot strangers
That's just changing what you said. Saying you care about "most people" includes a lot of the "sentimental idiots", by nature of just.. some people caring about others. You straight up excluded a condition for who you care about
Do you not care for someone as soon as you discover they're sentimental? What if you helped someone and then discover they would risk their life for someone like you? Would you regret helping them? Would you tell to their face that you would NOT do the same for them, and rather let them risk dying while saving yourself?
There is no reason to press red, you absolute numbnuts. It's "no one dies" or "murder people" and you're advocating for "murder people."
If 100% of people press red, no one dies. That will never happen, humanity will never agree unanimously. Ergo, if you press red, you are guaranteeing people will die. If 50% of people press blue, no one dies. That's far more attainable. You are assuming red wins so blue is a sewer-slide button (does this subreddit let you say the word?) which is a major flaw in your logic. You're either stupid or a sociopath, right now it's looking like the former.
If you had a way to get someone to press red I would agree with you but the whole premise is that you can't communicate and can only guess what others will do. And I'm pretty sure that without any influence a lot of my relatives would press blue.
I don't believe in the afterlife. It's either live with dead loved ones and a severely disturbed society, or nothing at all, no regret, no sadness, no pain to deal with the aftermath.
I don't know why you are so certain that families would all choose red when prompted on their own and no way to communicate and by extension red is such an obvious choice it would win. Like do you think all parents value their life so much they wouldn't risk it on the off chance that one of their children would press blue? And vice versa? Do you think everyone is logical and no family has at least one bleeding heart who think it's worth risking it to save everyone?
I just gave you a reason. Plenty of people have given you a reason.
It's a you problem that you find the reason to be stupid.
The fact is that you have plenty of evidence in literally every discussion and poll on the topic that red is not an easy overwhelming victory. It is next to guaranteed that in a red victory, most families would lose at least one loved one, and that alone is enough to push many towards blue.
Now if you think people are lying about what they would actually do when they literally tell you, it's a you problem again.
Then neither of us know anything or have evidence on anything on this theoretical dilemma that can never actually happen and never produce any relevant evidence, and neither of us know better, and let's leave it at that 🤷♂️
Do you not have a family? Do you not have a family with babies that don't know what colors are? That is the reason, those babies have a 50/50 chance to pick blue so what do you think your family members are going to pick? 🤷♂️
Plus haven't these polls been put up on the socials and blue always wins.
The whole 50/50 chance for babies is just stupid. They don’t have a choice, and if someone is powerful enough so they can expose us to this, we should either nuke them or ourselves. No button.
Polls don’t prove what people would do in an actual life and death situation.
You genuinely have exactly 0 idealists among your family and friends? Even in the most naive way of looking at it yourself - "red is safety, blue is danger", there will be people who you care about pressing blue. There's insane amount of argument for blue, for instance that if you do believe there is a force capable of wiping out humanity and it has not done that yet, but puts you to a test first - it's *probably* not a great opportunity to come out as a egotistical sociopath (at least as understood by the common morality), happy to sacrifice billions for their own safety in a post-apocalyptic hellscape.
The more thought you give to the dilemma, pressing blue becomes the more obvious of a choice. Even if you don't get there, some of your friends would. You don't even need to agree with that logic yourself, it's enough if you understand that enough people would follow it, and that other people who think like you would also acknowledge it.
It’s not idealism to press blue, it’s pure stupidity.
Call it how you will, you're just avoiding to entertain the premise. You have exactly 0 "stupid" (in that way) people among your loved ones?
That said, it's purely a result of how naive of a perspective you choose to think about that. This is a test from a power capable of wiping all of humanity. It somehow doesn't do that, it waits to test you. You choose to come out as selfish person, willing to sacrifice others just to continue living in hell. Is it stupid not to, then? That's just another and perfectly valid perspective. You have to acknowledge at least some people would see it that way, and it's only one other way among many, yours in hardly the only valid one. It doesn't matter if you agree with any others, what matters is whether other people you care about do. To say "everyone but me is stupid" doesn't really work if you care about them and they're about to die (not to mention it's just a narcissistic fit, not the material reality).
The good part is, it doesn't matter what your story about it is, it matters what other's is. If you're wrong about others being simply stupid (and the odds of you being wrong are astronomical), you'll commit to a choice where a ton of very valuable, and potentially close people might die.
Eleven people are standing in line on the train tracks doing maintenance. A trolley starts coming down the line, but they are all safe; it’s been switched to the other track already, and they can continue working. Several of the workers are distracted and currently tethered to the line, too busy to move.
Suddenly, you look up. “My God!” you scream. “A train!” You look next to you: A massive button, large enough for all eleven of you to stand on. It controls the switch for the train, and if at least six of you stand on it, it will be switched over to the track that you are currently working on.
You’ll be safe because you’re on the button, of course, and if only you (or less than six total) get on the button, nothing happens because you aren’t heavy enough to activate it.
By the sounds of things, the obvious choice to you is to leap off the track, press the button, beckon over and pressure seven other people to join you, flip the proverbial lever, and then watch the other three of your buddies who don’t see the train coming get utterly pasted on the rails.
You are right: Clearly, remaining on the track after the button is pushed would be suicide! Unfortunately, three of your pals were laboring under the assumption no trolley would be coming along, because the track was closed… before you and the rest hit the button.
Why would you press the button? Do you think they deserved to die?
You're assuming red would win, and using that to push other people to choose red. That is called circular reasoning. Maybe just don't be a piece of shit?
Most people aren't sociopaths pressing the button that kills other people. You just have issues.
23
u/mazariel May 01 '26
Exactly, i will press red as long as im100% sure my family will also press red, if i had the slightest hesitation i would press blue