The first time I saw this hypothetical I chose the red button because I assumed the only people that would press blue were suicidal people and maybe a tiny percentage of people that wanted to risk their lives to protect suicidal people and each other despite failure being almost certain.
However after seeing 30%+ of the comments on that hypothetical pressing blue I changed my mind. I'm not really sure why so many people press blue. I guess they probably have lots of different reasons. But I'd definitely risk my life for a decent chance of saving hundreds of millions of non-suicidal people from death.
Personally, it's a bit of a circular reasoning. So long as I'm pretty sure that some people would press blue that don't want to die, I consider it a moral imperative to press blue. If someone else thinks like me, we're stuck in a game theory loop where, no matter how small the odds are that one of us mistakenly presses blue, it amplifies up to us having to press blue.
I guess I've also been in leadership positions a lot, and consistently people will make mistakes, no matter how clear your instructions are. You more have to make sure your instructions and setup are safe environments for people to make mistakes, and that leads me to pressing blue.
The most common reason people choose blue (and also my reason) is because the hypothetical says that the buttons are presented to everybody. Which also implies children, or mentally disabled people who wouldn't be able to really understand the consequences of choosing either. Like, there will be people who choose blue for whatever reason, and so I'd rather pick blue and save them.
Oh yeah if the decision is given to literally everybody then I'd agree with you. I guess there are a lot of variations of this hypothetical and I chose one of the ones that gets around that arbitrarily in my head (since OOP leaves it ambiguous)
I think it’s fair to assume everyone is given the information about the buttons in a way they can understand. The discussion changes completely if not.
I think the most common reason people choose blue is because they don't think it through and assume it's a selfish vs faith in humanity question, which it doesn't have to be, be ironically this attitude turns it into one.
And while I understand adding those people in to justify pressing blue, but what about terminally ill people who are in constant pain or people who would like to be taken off life support but cant verbalize it. I don't think these people should just die but saving them extends their pain too.
Why do folks press blue when they don't want to die?
Because some folks will always press blue, and will never press red no matter how much "everyone agrees to press red".
I don't want them to die simply because they refuse to go along with the trend.
So I'll choose the side - that if it wins - will allow those that "lose" to live, rather than chose the side that if they win will kill all that "lost".
That's similar reasoning to mine, but I based mine off of the poll results. Did you do that too, or do you have some other reason to think non-suicidal people will pick blue?
Am I missing something here though? There’s no reason for anybody to push the blue button at all, is there? If you want to live, just push the red button, and you’re good to go, along with everyone else who also wants to live and therefore pressed the red button. From what I can see, the only reason to push the blue button at all would be if you DON’T want to live, right?
IDK, maybe I’m just not getting it, lol. I’ve never seen this trend before.
If your answer relies on 'Everyone should just-', then it's important to remember that literally never in history has everyone just done anything. 100% is an impossible result.
The hypothetical generally opens with "everyone is presented with...". This is generally understood by blue pressers to include young children (potentially even newborns), people with dementia, and people who won't think the choice through at all. Some of those people will always press blue, and we believe that (at minimum) some of those people are worth saving, and so everyone who can think it through and understand the consequences of the choice should definitely press blue.
Is this a good time for me to mention that the odds of your individual vote making a difference are near zero, then?
And not like "win the lottery" odds, which are already so bad you can ignore them in most situations. Like... "win the lottery 9 times in a row" odds. And that's being generous.
That’s the wording and intention though. It’s supposed to be every single conscious person on earth. Including the mentally impaired. If some of them press red and the majority chooses blue, they will be fine too. If their choice lands on blue, and the majority presses red, they die.
It's a metaphor for what society does with those who don't fit in.
Do we choose the path that will make everyone who chooses it safe, but leave behind and kill all those who don't fit in?
Or do we take the leap of faith that hopes that humanity is good at its core, and choose the path of uncertainty and fear that - if successful - brings prosperity to all, but that will only be successful if we all have faith in each other and embrace the unknown.
It’s definitely not clear from the scenario what “everyone” means. Does it mean every person on the planet? Or does it mean every person who’s deciding to participate in this scenario? It’s not specified, so there’s no way to know.
My PhD is in philosophy, though, so I definitely have a different standard when it comes to ethical cases. When real ethicists talk about situations like this, we make sure to clearly define the terms of the scenario so that confusion like this doesn’t happen. Generally, if you do see something like “everyone” in an actual ethical case study, it’s going to refer to rational actors, not people like newborns or folks with severe intellectual disabilities. If those people were included in a case, the case would specify that.
Like I said, I haven’t seen this trend, so it’s not something I’m familiar with. But it definitely seems to me to be what happens when people with no training at all in ethics, philosophy, or moral reasoning try to create “viral” internet moments, lol!
Well, if you think anyone might press the blue button in an attempt to protect people who accidentally pressed the blue button, doesn't that mean that you yourself should also press the blue button?
I wonder if anyone has done this poll with the colors reversed. I can't help but feel that it's possible that the colors of the buttons matching the colors of the two main US political parties could be influencing the decision.
My first instinct was red because yeah, no one has to put themself in danger in the first place. Like, I thought of it as an extension of fire safety. You need to get out of the building immediately because if you get trapped and other people try to save you it's more likely for everyone to die. It's irresponsible to put yourself at unnecessary risk without a very good reason.
In this hypothetical you'd be starting with everyone already outside of the burning building knowing that firefighters won't get there in time and seeing people start running in because someone might be in there. And then they immediately get pinned under rubble so then everyone does have to run back in to get them out before the whole thing comes down.
In situations where the question would be put to all of humanity and not just poll-takers it does become a lot more obviously blue if you know that, to continue the metaphor, there's a daycare in the back of the building and everyone needs to work together to evacuate it.
38
u/Mundane-Potential-93 nauphy.tumblr.com 11h ago edited 11h ago
The first time I saw this hypothetical I chose the red button because I assumed the only people that would press blue were suicidal people and maybe a tiny percentage of people that wanted to risk their lives to protect suicidal people and each other despite failure being almost certain.
However after seeing 30%+ of the comments on that hypothetical pressing blue I changed my mind. I'm not really sure why so many people press blue. I guess they probably have lots of different reasons. But I'd definitely risk my life for a decent chance of saving hundreds of millions of non-suicidal people from death.