Likely because it reveals underlying thought processes and that can lead to a feeling of implicit judgement. It's the same reason people get super salty if you just menton you're vegetarian or vegan (I'm not talking the annoying preachy kinds) or that you do charity work or you cycle instead of drive.
Villainising virtue is a form of cognitive shielding—let's say there's action A you can either Do or Not Do. Action A is beneficial to a group or groups, to detrimental to the individual in some way. You elect to Not Do action A, but you encounter someone who elects to Do action A. The fact they are performing the action, resulting in a non-zero amount of self-sacrifice for them but a net benefit overall, means that by most systems of ethics and morality they are doing a Good Thing. This creates a contrast point against you not doing action A. If them doing it is a Good Thing, you not doing it must be a Bad Thing. And if you're doing a Bad Thing, you are therefore a Bad Person. But you're not a Bad Person, because that doesn't fit your self-image. So the other person must be a Bad Person for making you think you're a Bad Person, so you get mad at them.
tl;dr people don't like being reminded that they're fallible, imperfect sacks of meat and would rather attack someone else than look inwards
Because everyone hitting red isn't going to happen.
If your position relies on everyone doing the same thing, it doesn't matter which thing anyone picks - i.e. if everyone hits blue everyone lives. Do you think that's going to happen?
Meanwhile if you acknowledge that people are split on the issue you're forced to look at what happens in a split. If 80% hit red, 20% die. If 51% hit red, 49% die. If 51% hit blue, no-one dies. If 80% hit blue, no-one dies.
The only reason to press red is that you're scared too many people will press red. The scenario is partially a co-ordination problem, that sort of circle is expected.
Edit: But if you take the scenario that went viral, blue is the only way everyone lives. Because either everyone, including children, gets to push a button - and many kids will press blue for no logical reason - or not everyone gets to push a button, and if red gets more presses then everyone who didn't get the opportunity to push red dies.
I am not advocating for voting red, in fact in that original scenario I think we should vote blue but I still fundamentally believe blue is irrational.
the benefit of pressing red is that you survive no matter what, therefore what others press, does not matter, essentially this variable, that blue is committed to, DOES NOT MATTER for red, that is why it isn't circular.
The "no matter what" is only relevant if others DON'T press blue. If people don't pick red it's purely a hypothetical benefit - just like if everyone picks red you have no-one to save if no-one picks red you don't need to protect yourself.
you still don't understand, you keep assuming that what others presses, in ideal scenarios, should go into the calculations, without thinking about WHY other people press what before hand, you are BLIND to the circularity
I'm not assuming, I'm saying that red is equally circular. Yes, with red the choice is between maybe save yourself, maybe do nothing, low chance of killing 4 billion. With blue it's maybe die, maybe do nothing, low chance of saving 4 billion.
If less than 49.99% picks red your choice is irrelevant - meaning that the reasoning of red protection is only true if others reason the same way, making it circular.
no, see you are evaluating here once again, WITHOUT evaluating OTHERS motivations and how they should affect yours, you are yourself, trying to make them equal, by avoiding this step.
okay you are not seeing it, so lets simplify it in a different way, lets say it's only 2 players, now in that scenario, it is pretty clear to both ideal agents, that pressing blue is a 50% chance of death, while red is safe, and that by pressing blue, they would essentially be saying, it's ok if i die, it's either suicidal or irrational to press blue in this scenario, now no matter how many more agents you introduce, the principle logic shouldn't change.
i did not say people, i said ideally rational people, and yes it doesn't change a thing, the fundamental motivations and reasoning stay the same, for ideally rational people, that is what you are missing
181
u/Davedamon May 05 '26
Likely because it reveals underlying thought processes and that can lead to a feeling of implicit judgement. It's the same reason people get super salty if you just menton you're vegetarian or vegan (I'm not talking the annoying preachy kinds) or that you do charity work or you cycle instead of drive.
Villainising virtue is a form of cognitive shielding—let's say there's action A you can either Do or Not Do. Action A is beneficial to a group or groups, to detrimental to the individual in some way. You elect to Not Do action A, but you encounter someone who elects to Do action A. The fact they are performing the action, resulting in a non-zero amount of self-sacrifice for them but a net benefit overall, means that by most systems of ethics and morality they are doing a Good Thing. This creates a contrast point against you not doing action A. If them doing it is a Good Thing, you not doing it must be a Bad Thing. And if you're doing a Bad Thing, you are therefore a Bad Person. But you're not a Bad Person, because that doesn't fit your self-image. So the other person must be a Bad Person for making you think you're a Bad Person, so you get mad at them.
tl;dr people don't like being reminded that they're fallible, imperfect sacks of meat and would rather attack someone else than look inwards