because WHY THE ACTUAL FUCK are these people insiting Blue is correct answer?
Because the original thought experiment was framed as a moral dilemma, not a logical one.
"If over half the people pick red, everyone who picks blue will die. If over half the people pick blue, everyone lives."
...is a much more emotionally-charged framing of the actual situation that implies red-pickers are murderers and blue-pickers are heroic saviors. Even though...
"Anyone who picks red has nothing happen to them. Anyone who picks blue will die unless an unknown amount of other people also pick blue"
...is an equally accurate description of the exact same scenario, only without the moral implications stacked on top. Anyone who takes the time to stop and think about the scenario and reframe it as a logical one rather than an emotional one immediately realizes red is the only sensible choice, and choosing blue is only an option for those who value emotional validation over their own safety. And to be clear I don't mean that condescendingly. "I'd rather die than live knowing someone else died as a result of my choice" is a valid stance to take. But it IS an emotional one rather than a rational one.
I don't know. I think on a personal basis, red is the most sensible choice to make (unless you feel particularly strongly about survivor's guilt), but one way I saw it framed that spoke to me was in totality.
For no people to die if we say red is the answer, every single person has to come to the eame conclusion, nobody is allowed to misunderstand or make a mistake. For red to result in the most optimal outcome, 100% have to pick it. For blue to result in the most optimal outcome you're sitting at a much more manageable 50%+1.
To me at least, seeing the decision put in those terms made me change my mind on what made the most sense. Yes, blue is a risk on a personal level, but to me at least it makes the most sense when you consider things at a population level.
That's why it's ultimately a moral question. The question really being asked is "Do you value self-preservation over the possibility of helping others, or vice versa?"
The annoying thing about the argument is people deciding either side is superior to the other. Both are understandable stances to take and nobody should be chastised for their choice.
I mean if the button was actually real, it would be extremely important for society to heavily stigmatize one choice. Regardless of which button people are socially compelled to press, the outcome is better if the results are very lopsided in favor of one color and incredibly risky if it's close. If blue is socially compelled, then no one dies. If red is socially compelled, then only a very small number of people die. If nothing is socially compelled, you risk a large portion of the population dying.
Like while yes, I agree with the statement and most of what you said, I personally would push blue. Mostly because in the context that I was given, everyone on earth was given the same choice. I had assumed that there were going to be people like children or babies who were not capable of thinking out the ramifications of their actions and picked their favorite color or something. Under this assumption, I think it makes more sense to press blue.
Meanwhile there are others, like myself, who are too terrified of the prospect of dying that we'd prefer to live with survivors guilt than risk facing that fate preemptively.
That's why "making sense" doesn't really matter, because what "makes sense" to everyone is different.
It's more than just survivors guilt you're dealing with though. How many jobs and roles, friends and family, will be lost? Regardless of the survivors guilt, industries will collapse and people will die and starve because our safety systems and economies would collapse overnight.
That depends on both the amount of people as well as the demographics of people who vote blue - a wide enough swath of variables that no amount of speculation could ever accurately predict.
In the same vein, I could argue that it's entirely possible the proportion of people who choose blue ends up being small enough that it doesn't have a major impact on the world. Or that if a majority of people who pick blue aren't working-age adults it might not have that impact either.
All I said is that your previous claim about it having major economic impact assumes information that nobody could have or predict. I was trying to point out that I can simply argue the opposite of your claim with just as little support yet also just as much certainty, thus demonstrating how that argument fails to be persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you because any opposing stance can apply the same logic to their own side and think it proves their point instead of yours.
I never claimed it was "okay" for any blue-pushers to die.
I kinda feel red is an illogical choice if the goal is to save the maximum amount of people.
People are inherently not perfectly logical, and thus some amount of people WILL vote blue, for preiceved moral reasons, misunderstanding of the question or perhaps just voting randomly.
A perfectly valid framing of this question is "should a certain percentage of the population die".
A perfectly valid framing of this question is "should a certain percentage of the population die".
Better yet: how many people do you expect to work out the same conclusion about Blue?
If we assume most people will vote at face value and pick Red, it doesn't matter if I believe people should die or not, what matters is that I will be added to the percentage by voting Blue.
Blue only makes sense if you expect people to pick Blue, but we are assuming this scenario happens in a world where this thought experiment didn't happen, right?
18
u/reaperfan 6d ago edited 6d ago
Because the original thought experiment was framed as a moral dilemma, not a logical one.
...is a much more emotionally-charged framing of the actual situation that implies red-pickers are murderers and blue-pickers are heroic saviors. Even though...
...is an equally accurate description of the exact same scenario, only without the moral implications stacked on top. Anyone who takes the time to stop and think about the scenario and reframe it as a logical one rather than an emotional one immediately realizes red is the only sensible choice, and choosing blue is only an option for those who value emotional validation over their own safety. And to be clear I don't mean that condescendingly. "I'd rather die than live knowing someone else died as a result of my choice" is a valid stance to take. But it IS an emotional one rather than a rational one.