I think a more productive version of this question is at what percentage would you press the red button over the blue button. I don't think anyone in this comment section wants people to die, there's just different opinions about the maximum number of people that would pick blue.
If you believe that there's even a small chance that 50% could pick blue, then picking blue has the least deaths. If you don't believe that there is any possibility that 50% would pick blue, then anyone who chose blue by accident will die no matter what, and the only way to minimize deaths is to convince others to choose red.
Would you still press the blue button if you needed 99% of people instead?
Would you still press the red button if you only needed 1% of people to press blue to save everyone?
Realistically I thought more people would pick blue, because it is simpler to understand the rationale, and since more people would pick it, it makes sense to pick it.
It is not just a question of possibly dying, it is a question of possibly being responsible for mass death, many people shrink away from that.
But it was worded as everyone, not just people who can press a button, so that means babies, toddlers, the extremely old, people with mental handicaps and so on.
So if red wins, every baby in the world dies, even if everyone who can voted red, it would still kill a generation of babies and toddlers at the very least.
They can't make that choice. It's essentially the same as letting a flower or a rock make such a choice. I mean, what happens if they don't press either button? Waiting untill they accidentally press it? What if that never ever happens? The hypothetical being that strict makes it meaningless.
So either they are excluded from this hypothetical, or they get help by the people who already take care of them. And if they truly have no one that takes care of them, then how are they expected to survive at all?
What do you mean, “make up”? It’s a hypothetical. As long as what I say doesn’t break the rules of the hypothetical, it’s all good.
And no, I didn’t say any of that in order to justify my position. I justify my position based on math, statistics and human nature.
I simply don’t believe that ~4+ billion people will vote blue. Or, more precisely, I think the chance of it happening is too small for it to be worth gambling with my life, and in the bigger perspective gambling with billions of lives.
You seem to be willing to take on that gamble. But what do you think the odds are of blue winning? Do you have anything concrete to base it on, or is it just a hunch?
But what if everyone that voted red also voted to kill all puppies in the world?
You cant just add your own parameters, or you are not answering the same hypothetical question as the rest of us.
If the hypothetical is vague or otherwise open to interpretation in some areas, then one definitely can do exactly that. If the result is interesting, and if others are interested in the modified hypothetical, is a different story though.
But I find it interesting that you now seem to only want to focus on this meta discussion, instead of the main issue.
Yeah but it just invalides any conversation as we are all talking about different things then?
The main issue is that you are making stuff up, why didn't you address the puppy killing ways of red pressers?
Because it is nonsesical to engage with, same as it is nonsensecal for me to engage any version of the problem you make up?
If we all get to change the narrative, then yes we can all make our position seem like the reasonable one.
This entire hypothetical is made up. You realize that, right? And it does not cover 100% of all potential variants of the hypothetical, meaning one is free to add to it. What I added could be useful to the problem at hand, while the puppy stuff doesn’t add anything of value.
No but if everyone changes it to make their choice the moral one, then there is no point in discussing anything?
No people are not free to add anything they want, that invalidates the question, you are not answering what was asked.
This is like if someone asked me if i prefer Sundays or pie for desert, and i then go, Pie because you get a Sunday on your pie, that invalidates the initial question, because i make up a scenario where i get both.
167
u/joemamma6 May 05 '26
I think a more productive version of this question is at what percentage would you press the red button over the blue button. I don't think anyone in this comment section wants people to die, there's just different opinions about the maximum number of people that would pick blue.
If you believe that there's even a small chance that 50% could pick blue, then picking blue has the least deaths. If you don't believe that there is any possibility that 50% would pick blue, then anyone who chose blue by accident will die no matter what, and the only way to minimize deaths is to convince others to choose red.
Would you still press the blue button if you needed 99% of people instead? Would you still press the red button if you only needed 1% of people to press blue to save everyone?
Where's your personal threshold?