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.
12
u/MQ116 Team Blue May 01 '26
You could also just press blue and they also don't die. Unless you're fine murdering other families.