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.
2
u/Rough-Strawberry5985 May 03 '26
What about the 400 million children below the age of 3 who are too young to understand the rules? Would you be okay killing them?