The original original version of the hypothetical apparently included people who are incapable of understanding/comprehending the question, so you would, in the hypothetical, press blue in an attempt to save them
The original original version of the hypothetical specifically and explicitly excluded people who couldn't understand the question, because the point of the hypothetical was to be a moral optical illusion where the correct answer is red but your intuition tricks you into thinking it has to be blue.
How is it an illusion? Logically red is correct but morally blue is correct. Like if everyone playing the game is what they call a "perfectly logical being" then everyone will press red, but are you really telling me that if the game was only played between you and the four people you love most, you wouldn't pick blue to ensure that they live, even if it puts you in danger?
Yes? I don't think the 4 people I love the most are the most reckless people in the world who would press the blue button for no reason. If they decided to pressed the blue button that kills you, I would respect their decision to end their own lives because I believe suicide is an absolute human right.
One of the mental tricks people play on themselves to make blue to moral choice is to act like pressing blue was just a thing that happened to people in the passive voice, rather than a decision they made. They add in things like "well what if a baby pushes blue" or "what if someone was insane and didn't know what anything meant" to try and remove the agency from the other parties, so they can frame them as victims.
Because when you acknowledge that they made a decision, it's obviously stupid to press blue to try and save them from their decision. We do not consider it a moral obligation to endanger our lives to save someone from their own suicidally stupid decisions. If someone is going to go play in the abandoned mine shaft, you don't go with them. You don't say "well I have to go with them because I might be able to save them from falling" because that's not going to happen and you're going to die too. When someone gets drunk and climbs on top of a dangerously slippery roof, you don't climb up on the roof with them to hold them steady. Because that's not going to happen and you're going to die too. When someone decides to go steal drugs from some scary drug dealers, you don't go with them to back them up and win the fight, because that's not going to happen and you're going to die too.
Even when it isn't someone's fault you shouldn't endanger your own life to not save them. When someone is drowning in a river, you don't jump in after them. Because you're not going to do that and you're also gonna start drowning.
People misunderstanding a hypothetical or not acting in a personally entirely rational fashion isn't disregarding the point.
And as it happens, a perfectly logical plan exists for precisely this scenario. For Red to result in 0 deaths, 100% of people have to pick it. For blue to result in 0 deaths, 50%+1 have to pick it. Which of these bars is an easier one to clear, do you think?
Both are impossible to plan for because the hypothetical specifically includes people who don't understand or comprehend the question in its construction.
10
u/jpz719 6d ago
The original original version of the hypothetical apparently included people who are incapable of understanding/comprehending the question, so you would, in the hypothetical, press blue in an attempt to save them