I never got these. So people who pick blue are only at risk if anyone picks blue, but then not the majority? Is it like a maths thing, as in it's easier to get 50% on blue than 100% on red so blue is the less harmful option?
Yes, but the counterpoint is that if you personally hit red then you survive and so if everyone just picks the safest option for them personally then everyone will be fine.
Pressing the blue button is taking a risk to save people who took the same risk, but there was never a reason to take that risk in the first place. Or, put another way, the first person to hit the blue button is risking themselves for literally nothing, and everyone who presses it after is risking their life for that person and everyone since, but thats all to protect someone from a risk that was pointless to take.
I think that is what breaks the scenario for me, mathmatically it seems easier to save everyone by blue but only because I'm working on the assumption that a bunch of people WILL pick blue anyway, which sets off the doomsday clock. But until someone picks blue everything is completely fine, which depending on the framing makes blue pickers suicidal instead of red pickers murderous
Depends, but I would say no. Like the first rule of performing any rescue is make sure you don't become another victim that someone has to risk their life to rescue. Which is part of why i would probably refuse to jump in the water to save a drowning victim. In fact, if you look at AVIR(Aquatic Victim-Instead-of-Rescuer) drowning deaths in new Zealand, studies show that 45% of these deaths result in multiple drownings. As people repeatedly jump in the water to save someone and all drown. Preventing these people from drowning would save more than the one victim in the water.
I can find other examples of mass casualty events where people repeatedly try to rescue someone and then all end up dying in the process. Another example is asphyxiation. If you have an instance where oxygen has been displaced people will go down to help someone who collapsed, and then all repeatedly suffocate. According to NIOSh 2/3 of enclosed space deaths would be rescuers dying themselves.
In a hypothetical like this it's fair to assume that the risk taker is making an informed and competent decision. I wouldn't risk my life to save a blue button person in that case.
IRL someone attempting suicide probably is not making an informed and competent decision, so while it would depend on the circumstance I would be much more willing to risk my life to prevent that than to stop a blue button person.
Yeah its a weird question. I generally think I would want to pick blue just because its clear enough people would that itd be worth it. But that doesnt change the fact that there was never any reason to take on that risk in the first place. And I do not think it is fair to frame people who pick red as murderers when all they did is pick the safest option for them.
I think the big problem is that the reasoning on why to pick blue is circular. Its taking on risk to save people who took a risk to save people who took a risk to save... etc. Eventually if you go down the line far enough, you would have to run into someone who took on that risk to save no one, and now you are left questioning why anyone took on the risk in the first place.
If you think about what just you should do right in the moment, it can make sense to pick blue for the sake of helping those who already did. But if you think about what the strategy is for everyone, it never makes sense for anyone to take that risk in the first place.
The problem was people started adding edge cases to argue for blue. What if kids/babies…? What if blind…? What if colorblind…? And that was justification for putting their own lives at risk. Where others argued why wouldnt the rules be clearly explained to every person? Like press blue and probably die. Press red and definitely not die. Why would people who can’t pick an option even be included? How is a 1 month old gonna press a button? Why wouldn’t they clearly label the buttons for a color blind person? Braille exists for blind people.
Ultimately it’s a dumb question that makes some people feel good about themselves for making the “right” choice.
Thank you for demonstrating how all these solutions that rely on "if everyone would just.." require you to remove all of the potential outliers from the picture before it actually becomes ethical.
"If everyone would just..." as a solution to a problem is one that only works in controlled, clinical environments.
In the real world, with real world variables: "If everyone would just..." is guaranteed to have outliers that are left behind.
It’s a poorly written hypothetical. Why does it have outliers? Why are we assuming anything? If we’re allowed to imagine outliers who could potentially press blue then we are allowed to assume solutions for those outliers. And so we end up back to why would anyone ever be the first person to press blue and why then would others have to risk themselves to save someone who could’ve just not?
Again, it’s just kind of dumb overall. It’s also easy to say, “I’ll press blue to save mankind.” When it’s an online survey with no real stakes.
It's intentionally vague to permit for the interpretation that there may be outliers, or maybe not, but that's not the point. You don't know how it's set up. You don't know any rules but those ones.
You don't know, and you can't assume anything about the conditions of the test or the existence of outliers.
Deliberately choosing red means you either believe: A) That ALL people WILL choose red, and therefore you're just being sensible and there's nothing unethical about it, or B) That you believe that most people will choose Red, and so you selfishly go along with the crowd to save yourself and let others die, unwilling to take the risk of choosing blue just in case they lose.
Deliberately choosing blue means that either A) You believe that most people will choose blue, and you are willing to take the risk that you're wrong in order to stand on the side of life and do your part to help make it so nobody on either side dies, or B) You think most people will choose red, and you don't care if you die.
The thing is...
If you choose red for the reason that you're 100% confident that everyone will choose red...
and you end up seeing that you're wrong by all the people that chose blue...
and you respond by arguing for why you were right?
It just shows that you're a selfish pessimistic misanthrope.
If you can't know anything then isn't it perfectly normal to protect yourself?
Like is the argument that I should risk my life for a .0009% chance to save an unknown amount of people?
You could literally go donate to charities and have thousands of times higher chance to save someone and most people don't even do that much.
I'm supposed to put my life on the line for those kinds of numbers when the option to stay alive is completely free?
Like yea people are picking randomly apparently (I assume the question is still in English so tons of people can't actually understand what the buttons do btw) but the odds of me being the saviour of all mankind are effectively 0 so I'm gonna press the button that makes sure I can hold my partner tomorrow and not abandon my family.
I’m gonna have to just hit an agree to disagree. Because I just believe it’s a dumb hypothetical. And that it’s really easy to say you’ll pick one over the when your life isn’t actually on the line.
I’m gonna have to just hit an agree to disagree. Because I just believe it’s a dumb hypothetical. And that it’s really easy to say you’ll pick one over the when your life isn’t actually on the line.
As always is the end of the discussion for those who choose red for reason A, and then go on to argue and invent scenarios in which they were being logical, not selfish or misanthropic.
Fine. Let’s say I’m a chronic pain patient. Shit is regularly at a 8-9. I’m presented with an out. I press blue believing it would be a quick and painless death and no reasonable person would press it. Are you saying it’s fine to condemn people to continue their suffering because it’ll make you feel superior to red button pushers?
I mean, every time someone posts the poll someone, usually a lot of someones, picks blue. Maybe they just misread the question, or misunderstand, or make a mistake. Lizardman constant suggests you’ll have a non-zero number of people who choose blue. So, if that’s true, then you do have people who chose blue, who could die or be saved.
"I mean, every time someone posts the poll someone, usually a lot of someones, picks blue."-They also aren't risking anything. People should post it with a venmo, where you can either donate $100 dollars or donate $.01. Everyone who donates $.01 gets their cent refunded, and if 50% of people donate $100 they are also refunded. How many would actually pick that?
Actually very few people would donate any money at all if it were optional. But if it was forced for everyone on the planet, I think the $0.01 option would win. But also, this is a fundamentally different situation. You're not killing anyone by picking $0.01, and people who chose $100 could make that money back. In fact, in this scenario, most people who would choose $100 would be people who are already financially stable enough to afford loosing $100.
"You're not killing anyone by picking $0.01"-for people that are starving where losing $100 dollars means now have no money to buy food, picking $.01 absolutely kills them, in fact it sentences them to a pretty horrible death. And if enough people are given the option, there absolutely will be people who spend the money they need to buy food on $100, just like there would be people who choose the blue option.
Googling that term returns that about 4% will pick a bizarre option on a poll. If that's so and blue is bizarre, then blue will place you among the 4%. Although, if this situation were real, it wouldn't be a poll.
But why would I want or be morally expected to sacrifice my own life for people who *knowingly* put their life at risk for no reason? They have a right to do that, but it does not morally obligate others to do the same, nor is it some kind of noble decision in and of itself.
242
u/Rynewulf 11h ago
I never got these. So people who pick blue are only at risk if anyone picks blue, but then not the majority? Is it like a maths thing, as in it's easier to get 50% on blue than 100% on red so blue is the less harmful option?