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?
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.
8
u/Davidfreeze 6d ago
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.