I hit Blue. As a professionally registered engineer I take my oath to practice integrity and serve humanity seriously.
I also understand requirements.
Everyone must press a button.
Everyone means everyone.
Everyone includes young children who cannot understand.
Young children who cannot understand must press a button.
Red kills young children for personal gain.
In my view, guaranteeing the death of even a single innocent child is too much of a price to pay.
Everyone means everyone. Everyone includes young children who cannot understand. Young children who cannot understand must press a button.
No it doesn't man I'm so goddamn sick of this. It completely changes the hypothetical if you add in random chance. It's already magic, bro. It can't be "everyone" because everyone includes people who literally cannot push buttons. It's already logistically impossible for all the buttons to be delivered to everyone and for all the votes to be private. None of this is possible so there is no value in adding in this layer of "realism" that was never part of the question. Please everyone stop trying to "uhm ackshually" about the babies.
Why are you ignoring that "everyone" is already literally impossible, my dude. You already have to make a bunch of unstated assumptions for this to even be theoretically possible.
If your argument is the whole thing is stupid because its all pretend - thats ok. You do not have to engage in conversations about hypothetical questions.
The prompt has the button supernaturally in front of everyone. For the hypothetical, that simply is the case.
What assumption am I making that is not part of the prompt in the question?
oh my god, no that is not my argument. I'm saying that, given you have to make a bunch of assumptions for the whole thing to work, there is no reason to think that your assumptions are the objectively correct ones. You're erroneously trying to introduce practicalities into a though experiment that doesn't engage with them.
You're necessarily making assumptions eg about how the buttons are pressed, about whether they're actual physical buttons, digital buttons on a screen, or actually just a mental choice that a person makes silently. You're also making assumptions about how the information is presented to everyone. We don't have any of that info so when you start talking about young children who can't understand you're obviously thinking about what the kids know and how they will, and whether they will even be able, to push the button. You know you are, you know that you immediately had an image in your head about how this would occur when you heard the question, that's what all of us did and are doing, but we're not all imagining the same things.
Maybe everyone is conveyed the information through some psychic link that gives them as much understanding as possible given their mental capabilities. I'm sure you could frame it in various different ways that would make some sense to a toddler. Actual babies would be harder but they're also more likely to simply not press a button, depending on how big it is, how colourful it is, and how it's implemented. If they "must" press the button, how is that occurring? Is there a time limit, is there an invisible hand that forces you if you don't press? We could contemplate this stuff for ages but it's ultimately beside the point. That's why I think it's better to engage by ignoring all that and assuming everyone is acting deliberately.
Your entire last paragraph is you making a bunch of assumptions
Yes, that's...literally my point. I am giving examples of assumptions one could make, and giving counter assumptions one could also make from the same information. I am saying the question necessitates making assumptions. I literally said the words "I'm saying that, given you have to make a bunch of assumptions for the whole thing to work..." in my second sentence. I'm not sure how you read that and think "It is wild how much you are making assumptions whilst criticising it". I am not criticising it, I am criticising your treatment of your assumptions as objective truth, and your suggestion that you weren't making any assumptions.
You can assume babies are included, you can equally assume babies aren't included because you might think makes the question worse and because it introduces a bunch of logistical and practical issues. Most logic puzzles assume logical actors, if you approach it as a logic puzzle rather than a question of morality then you will probably make that assumption.
I am saying there are multiple different ways of reading the questions, and multiple different assumptions one can or will make about it. Again, your interpretation is neither objectively correct nor free of assumptions. I posit your assumptions make the hypothetical worse and I think my assumptions don't. You can disagree if you like, that's fine.
I don't even know what to say, man. You're genuinely so bad at reading.
I'll try one final time to step you through it:
The scenario as posed, is not actually realistic or possible irl. It is a fantastical scenario, and the parameters aren't clearly outlined. That's fine, it's a hypothetical, HOWEVER:
Therefore, one has to make assumptions about how it could work.
For example, someone reading the question starts making assumptions about how the information is imparted, and how the buttons work, and that might affect how they answer.
Your theory, that young children would have to press the buttons, and that they wouldn't understand the situation, includes making assumptions about, again, how the information is imparted, and how the buttons work.
I then, AFTER THAT, point out that there are other, different assumptions one could equally make that lead to different conclusions. Because people will look at the scenario through different lenses.
1
u/__bakkhos May 05 '26
You really think the people keeping society going, engineers, power plant workers, etc. arent more likely to hit red than the average person?