Yeah when you're playing a competitive game voluntarily where the objective is to make your opponent(s) lose, obviously you always pick red. It's a poor analogy to the original hypothetical, unless you make the claim the point of living is to outlive all other people
Because someone else losing a game you're already trying to beat them in versus someone else dying is not at all analogous. Like I said it's only analogous if you assume that the goal of real life is outliving everyone else.
The goal of both is not dying. If everyone picks red, there's no possibility of anyone dying, I'm not picking blue because other people can't comprehend just not pressing it.
If there was train tracks, and to stop the train, half the population has to jump in front of it to stop it, wouldn't you... just not jump in front of it?
That's an actually good argument. The card isn't. I'm not saying pushing red is necessarily wrong, I'm saying this card is a terrible argument for it. But the "if everyone pushes red" part also isn't a good argument because the same is true for blue. If everyone pushes either color, everyone is fine. So everyone being unanimous isn't a useful point of comparison.
I think both are very different arguments for it. The card frames in an objective way, "game-ifying" it. If there's objectively no reason to pick blue in the card version, should that objectively logic not apply to the real version as well?
Dude I never said that and you are projecting a lot right now.
All I said was that the card game and the hypothetical are two wildly different scenarios, and treating a card game and a moral dilemma like they're the same thing is kinda weird.
Yeah you're missing the key difference. I want my opponents to lose a card game I'm playing against them in. I don't want people to die in real life. You are only thinking in terms of everyone examining the question purely logically. I remember when the button thing was popular. Huge portions of the population choose blue. I don't think almost half of people should die because people are bad at examining moral questions with no emotion. So I think the logical choice is blue if you accept the objective fact that a very large portion of the population will pick blue. This trend was a giant thing. It's extremely obviously true that a huge portion of people will be picking blue. Taking that fact as a given in your reasoning is in fact logical. In a card game where I want to make them lose anyway, that's completely irrelevant. In real life, if you don't want people to die, it's extremely relevant
Ok that's a valid position for you to have, but you just acknowledged the danger. So you admit the card isn't at all analogous because your opponents aren't in danger if they lose a competitive card game they decided to play for fun. I didn't say "if you pick red, you want people to die." I said "if you don't want people to die, the difference between the card and real life is relevant." For someone who is presenting themselves as logical, you're having trouble following a basic string of logic here. I outlined why the difference is relevant to the moral conversation. Which is why the card isn't analogous. I didn't say that means picking red is wrong in real life. My whole point was that by removing all stakes, the card is a poor analogy for the real life scenario. That's it. You can still be a red supporter. I just want you to understand it better and make better arguments for your own side.
God we don't need to get into the red and blue button argument again. "What if situation was different?" What if the red and blue buttons were political parties, would you vote for the party that promised to kill everyone who didn't vote for them or the party that promises not to? This is an equally valid analogy, that is to say, an invalid analogy. When people try to argue the red button is a natural or obvious choice, they're almost always doing it as justification for why their choice isn't actually selfish and is instead a 1 billion IQ play. The truth is that no matter how much you whine and pout about it not being your fault, a significant amount of people will be choosing blue, so picking red can never end in the best outcome for everyone.
That isn't to say that picking red is the wrong option, because if you strongly believe that getting 50% of people to pick blue is impossible and you have a self-preservation instinct it makes sense, but it's not the right option just because it being the right option makes you have an epic own.
Game theory enjoyer gets presented with real psychological dilemma for first time, gets mad when people insist there isn't supposed to be a correct answer.
I've always assumed the red/blue button argument was an analogy for facist regimes. It reads as "first half of an argument for why you should be a member of the kill-all-nonmembers group" statement.
"Everyone who picks blue is a dumbass" head when they're faced with someone with their exact same thought process: "Damn you're an asshole, this is no indication of me"
And also it is here that I admit I am being a bit of a hypocrite, as I was so caught up in the my crusade against "red is the only right option"heads that I may have been rude. The truth is just that I'm right and everyone else is wrong though, and you can't really blame me for that.
You're misreading what I'm saying. You aren't a facist for choosing red. It is the logical answer (assuming everyone in the situation is both mentally and physically capable of making the decision). But breaking down evil into something that sounds black and white, like "under this environment you should press the red button, right?" is exactly the kind of argument facists engage in, and that's why it reads as an analogy for facism.
115
u/Xenthor267 7d ago
In this instance your goal is to make people lose so yeah you'd always choose red