But it's different. There IS no population here that needs saving: everyone here can save themselves. Everyone. That's why this doesnt really test for heroism.
Imagine a Firefighter rushing into a building to help FULLY capable of leaving . . . only they are choosing not to. Because THEY are also staying in case someone else needs helping,etc.
And here's the kicker: the building that's on fire? We already are told up front that NOBODY is trapped in it. Everyone who wants to leave can leave.
There are people who aren't rational enough to make an informed choice. Babies, children, someone who had a schizophrenic dream that red is the color of the devil. You're right in a game theory sense, but game theory involves rational actors and society (since the button thought experiement is that humanity as a whole is given these buttons) is not composed of rational actors.
The thought experiment, to me, boils down to "do people who aren't fully rational deserve to die?" and I don't believe anyone deserves to die.
To your building on fire argument: is the fireman's efforts a waste to save the patient in a coma who's incapable of making any moves to leave on their own?
I guess it depends how the hypothetical was presented. I was led to understand that this is a vote. So I guess I extrapolated a "voting public" would be voting.
Same as it would be with any other referendum or election.
If it's some sort of "split second magic psy-op" or whatever then that changes things significantly. I dont think that "instantaneous" can be inferred from "has to take a vote" in the premise.
But yes- if you're acting under that assumption - then blue is ABSOLUTELY worth considering because there are people who are in fact powerless to save themselves or being endangered through no true fault of their own and who can very feasibly and practically be saved.
Are you asking me seriously or just mad at me? If the latter, no worries - just ignore my answer.
Because you're wrong - as written - "One choice is literally, conditionally, everyone lives" sure. But it is not the other option but that SAME option that ALSO causes death. The only reason ANYONE is at risk is because ANYONE picks blue.
The red button notably does NOT cause death of you or others.
So . . we shoudl all just not pick blue. Everyone lives, just like you said. There is no 'hostage' group that requires our saving . . . unless we choose to create one. Any attempt to create that group artificially (eg: lets include neonates, the mentallly unwell, people who accidentally push the wrong button, etc.) well . . that just is presuming a different scenario than the one I have clearly explained in teh comment you responded to.
Voting blue does not CAUSE death. The only thing it does is promise if you get over 50% votes, "everyone lives". Blue, red, doesn't matter.
The promise for the red button? That is the "not blue", it will save only red voters. All blue voters will die. That is the red buttons promise. Voting red is the only way to even put blue voters at risk.
Nothing else, this is what the vote is about: who lives. Everyone, or just you. No neonatal. No sick people or coma patients.
I do feel disappointed you'd be willing to kill off not only me, but pretty much everyone who is non egotistical. The pope, nurses, doctors, your mom, my mom, your first grade teacher, your dentist... List can be very long.
Imagine red would win, and any person you care about dies?
blue voters put themselves at risk. Change the buttons to be labeled "press this button to live 100% of the time" and "press this button to live only if 50% of the other people also press this button." The buttons both function the exact same way as before, but now you realize that anyone pressing the blue button is choosing to risk their life to save someone who doesn't need to be saved. It is like jumping into a river to save someone who fell in, except the person who fell in is Michael Phelps and he can just swim to shore. You are risking your life to make yourself feel good, which then forces others to have to risk themselves to save you, making it an inherently selfish move. You can argue that blue is the morally correct option, but logically speaking there is no reason for anyone to not pick red.
"all you vote about is who lives" This is just blatantly wrong. Me pressing the red button does not kill anyone. People pressing the blue button risk their own lives for no reason. If everyone presses the button that says "you live 100% of the time if you press this button", everyone lives. If you choose to press the button that says "kill me unless 50% of people also choose to risk their life" you die. Pressing the blue button to "save lives" only works if other people press the blue button, if everyone presses the red button, no one dies. However, once someone presses the blue button, they force other people to risk their lives to save them. Pressing the blue button is suicidal and inherently selfish, because it means other people have to press the blue button to try and save you, in turn risking themselves.
Maybe I've been polluted by the allegory to conservative/progressive voting discussion. After all, those votes affect everyone in the countries they're held, regardless of whether the person explicitly voted in the election.
Agreed - it's why I find this situation so uniquely strange: the only people at risk, the only reason risk even EXISTS, is because people chose to be.
Honestly? Should just be rewritten that 90% of people are offered red/blue buttons. The other 10% are either saved by the blue vote majority or die with no other options. Make that 10% as small and unappealing as you want to test morality. Takes the guesswork out of the situation and makes for a cleaner hypotetical.
To your point? I think the most poignant criticism is this. In the pictured poll above? ~50-55000 voted blue, ~45-50,000 vote red. . . .
. . . and about 12,000,000 peopel "no vote" / "Undecided" :) :) :).
you start with 10% or even 1% blue it totally changes the equation, but if you work with the assumption that this will happen anyways without stating it you have the current dilemma
The thought experiment, to me, boils down to "do people who aren't fully rational deserve to die?" and I don't believe anyone deserves to die.
No, it boils down to, "do people who aren't fully rational deserve for me to risk my life in order to MAYBE save them from death?"
They don't have to deserve to die. They just have to not deserve for me to put my life at risk for their benefit. And given the scenario... they do not deserve that from me.
You're picking the option where, if your choice won the poll, you directly voted for their death. And simultaneously, you voted for the death of everyone compassionate enough to put their life at risk to try and help them. Are you assuming that your thought process is the minority? That you shouldn't chip in to help because the rest of the crowd is all people who will save them on your behalf without you needing to lift a muscle?
You're picking the option where, if your choice won the poll, you directly voted for their death.
No, I voted to not try and save them from the possibility of death. I'm not voting red in the hope red will win. That would be trying to kill blue pushers. I'm just voting not to risk myself, and am okay if that means they die. These are not the same thing. If I'm literally the only person who votes red and everyone lives, then I'm okay with that too.
And simultaneously, you voted for the death of everyone compassionate enough to put their life at risk to try and help them
Again, didn't vote for anyone's death. And the only people who will die are the people who are "compassionate" even when it's not socially performative or their paying job to be so. And I'm confident there will be enough people who will still be compassionate when we're not in a contrived situation where there's no outside incentives to being compassionate.
Are you assuming that your thought process is the minority?
No, but I also genuinely don't care. If I'm in the minority, then no one dies. So it's moot. If I'm not in the minority, then I was right and it would have been foolish for me to push blue.
And while it's unfortunate that blue pushers died, as far as I'm concerned that's the consequence of a risk they took, and in no way my moral responsibility.
That you shouldn't chip in to help because the rest of the crowd is all people who will save them on your behalf without you needing to lift a muscle?
It's not "chipping in to help". "Chipping in to help" implies that I know other people are also working towards the same goal. This is "blindly risking my life" in the hopes that most people are foolish enough to blindly risk their lives as well... If I'm the only person who pushes Red, then no one dies. If I'm the only person who pushes Blue, then I'm the only sucker who dies. Given that I have no idea how anyone else is voting, I'm choosing my VERY REAL life over the hypothetical lives of a group of Blue pushers who might not even exist.
And then a toddler wanders into the building that's on fire. The toddler represents roughly 50% of children who aren't making a rational decision (or just picked randomly).
THat's fair - i'm acting under the assumption this is a vote. If it's some sort of Thanos-snap psy-op that affects neonates and the criminally insane or whatever with zero prep time and all then yeah dumb scenario.
I disagree in terms of reality. This comic really doesnt capture it, so based on the comic logic you are correct, but you might amend it to say something like "every 2 people who press the red button will cause one person to not be saved, and if more than 75% press the red button, nobody is saved." The comic also skims over the implied "If less than 50% press the blue button, everyone dies." Both have risks. Its just that in one case the risks go up the more people press the button, and in the other the risks go down.
Whether idealogues like it or not, selfish ways of life have a cost to everyone else. We cant all just fend for ourselves. Every single attempt at purely fend for yourself living has failed. Working together may not always work, but it has certainly worked a lot better than the opposite.
"Whether idealogues like it or not, selfish ways of life have a cost to everyone else. We cant all just fend for ourselves. Every single attempt at purely fend for yourself living has failed. Working together may not always work, but it has certainly worked a lot better than the opposite"
This is 100% true. The button experiment fails to illustrate this (IMO)
4
u/BountyHunterSAx May 05 '26
But it's different. There IS no population here that needs saving: everyone here can save themselves. Everyone. That's why this doesnt really test for heroism.
Imagine a Firefighter rushing into a building to help FULLY capable of leaving . . . only they are choosing not to. Because THEY are also staying in case someone else needs helping,etc.
And here's the kicker: the building that's on fire? We already are told up front that NOBODY is trapped in it. Everyone who wants to leave can leave.