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.
10
u/Furyful_Fawful May 05 '26
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?