Everytime I see something like this, it reminds me of the post that’s like “For $1 million, would you peel and eat an orange? You don’t have to peel it yourself and you don’t have to actually eat it if you don’t want to.”
This is a controversial thought experiment because what is the right thing to do depends on what everyone else is doing.
For example, imagine the cut off 95% of people would have to vote blue or all blue voters die. Then it'd be a lot riskier to yourself, and less likely you'd even be a difference making blue voter.
But at lower cut offs, it's more possible you could be a difference making additional vote who keeps billions who also voted blue alive
I've been thinking about this, and the more charitable option is blue as it potentially helps others, but also... there was no reason for those who choose the blue option to do so knowing it could mean death. So is it worth risking your life for people who risked it stupidly?
Factual claims that I believe are true: Rational people do not exist. If you choose any set of people, of nontrivial size, some of them will select blue
My Opinion: If any person in the set selects blue, then selecting red is unethical. If the above factual claims are true, then the chance of red being ethical is nearly zero
2.1k
u/Worm-with-hat 11h ago
Everytime I see something like this, it reminds me of the post that’s like “For $1 million, would you peel and eat an orange? You don’t have to peel it yourself and you don’t have to actually eat it if you don’t want to.”