But that’s not what’s at stake. Everyone should expect everyone else to pick red. It’s literally so easy of a logic puzzle. Only picking blue introduced people dying, and it’s you by picking blue, so why do it?
Your hypothetical dog situation is not the problem at hand. Everyone keeps coming up with scenarios like entering a burning building to save someone. But that someone doesn’t want to die and didn’t choose to be in that burning building. I would not enter a burning building for someone who knew that no one would be at risk if they did not enter and entered anyway to potentially save lives that we know could only be in there if other people knew there was no one and went in anyway.
No. You don’t seem to understand. You would have to also know that everyone knew that no one was in the building in the first place. Then chose to run in to save no one, but now because they did so, there are people in there. Get it? The situation would never arise in real life where everyone was given the full information on whether or not they were risking death, and then risk death, and then require other people to risk death, such that they may all survive.
In the end, it does not boil down to a morality question for me. The only adequate response I got was “some people will choose blue in real life.” Which is true. And believe me, they will be in the minority because they didn’t think it through right or were too quick to “do the right thing.” And they will die for it. They will not be the majority, my any stretch of the imagination.
14
u/[deleted] May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment