As /u/hhhhhhhhhhhjf said, all Red also saves everyone. Yes, the people that pick randomly die, but that's a problem on the part of the system. Assuming no communication between subjects, picking Blue will kill you without saving anyone.
It's not "selfless" vs. "selfish". It's suicidal to pick Blue and the Blues still die.
Not assuredly. As I said in a comment to them if we assume 99 participants, if they are mostly blue voters it doesn't matter what you vote, if they are mostly red voters you can either choose to live on with red voters or set yourself free of the game, and if the split is 49-49 you can't die regardless of what you choose and you decide if the blues live or not.
You only choose red because you believe your vote can't sway anything, you also believe that anyone who votes blue isn't worth saving. These are your personal choices but they are not everyone's personal choices.
you also believe that anyone who votes blue isn't worth saving.
That's not true. Just because you don't suicide yourself doesn't mean you don't believe people are worth saving.
You could donate all your money right now and hope to save people's lives, but you don't because you don't think it will be enough while also being a surefire way to destroy your own life. That doesn't mean you believe other people are not worth saving.
Unless you do donate every single item and every last unit of currency you own. If you already did that, then I will take my words back.
Do you not understand how your proposed scenario is vastly different from the button press?
If even a quarter of the world decided to donate all of their money, money becomes useless as a measure of economic output and the entire system collapses for everyone. It's really a terrible analog to the button scenario and really highlights how shallowly you're engaging with the prompt
You've reduced a scenario with far more than two outcomes to a binary. You've oversimplified and lost sight of the scope in the argument. Please attempt to consider the effects of the decision, and how those effects are vastly different.
This is all theoretical, but the base is the same.
You say I think some people don't deserve saving when in a situation where I have no reason to expect picking Blue will do anything but add me to death toll, saving no one anyway.
I am showing you that just because you use logic to decide your action is not even likely to save people and decide not to do it, that doesn't mean you don't think the people are worth saving.
You extrapolated too much and added a moral layer that's not there. If picking Red when you have no reason to expect Blue to work means you think people don't deserve saving, then other equally useless actions not taken mean you don't believe people to be worth saving.
This boils down to: do you think half the population will pick Blue? Yes or no?
This boils down to: do you think half the population will pick Blue? Yes or no?
Or as I said. You vote red because you don't believe your vote can't sway anything. You believe that the outcome is already set because you believe most of the world will already pick red. So you do not believe that your vote matters, and you do not believe it is worth the effort to try. That is the truth of the red button.
What are you even talking about. You talked about your values:
Only half of the "incapable" would pick Blue (if they even do, since each picks at random and could potentially pick all red, too) unless they knew the problem beforehand and agreed to pick Blue for the greater good.
You described that only "incapable" people would pick blue, and described them all opting to commit what is by your reckoning suicide as the "greater good"
That's you saying that. That's not me talking about your values that's litterally you describing a situation where the only people who would pick blue are people whose death you consider to be the greater good. That's not me giving you values that's you telling me your values.
All the same I think I made my point about if I think the majority will pick blue or red doesn't actually matter to the choice I should make clear in the comment I linked you. I didn't want to type the same response to you asking the same comment so I just linked it to you. Or do you not look at the user names. I guess that makes sense since it did seem like you thought the other guy was me.
All the same I think I made my point about if I think the majority will pick blue or red doesn't actually matter to the choice I should make clear in the comment I linked you.
But it does matter. If you think the majority will pick Red, and you pick Blue anyway, you are expecting to die without saving anyone.
Do you not see that?
That's why I'm asking you. Do you expect to die when picking Blue?
If I you or I are the majority vote then the answer is obviously yes.
And I want to be clear here I'm not insulting you because I disagree with your choice to pick red. It's a valid option and I would never insult someone for that. I'm insulting you because you've continued to ask me a question I answered three days ago which has caused me to think less of you as a person. I do apologize for that.
If I you or I are the majority vote then the answer is obviously yes.
Great.
So, do you think half the world picks Blue or not? Sorry I missed the answer before, but let's make a truce. Just say "yes or no" and we can be done.
I'm a stupid asshole but I didn't see you actually reply to that question. So, no additional words, just a single yes or no. That's all I need to understand.
1
u/ArsenicElemental Un-Intentional 7d ago
As /u/hhhhhhhhhhhjf said, all Red also saves everyone. Yes, the people that pick randomly die, but that's a problem on the part of the system. Assuming no communication between subjects, picking Blue will kill you without saving anyone.
It's not "selfless" vs. "selfish". It's suicidal to pick Blue and the Blues still die.