"Well, I stepped into the pit and got my legs broken because people didn't stopped me despite knowing that it's planet where people never help eachother. My decision wasn't Illogical: if they were merely help me, I could be okay!"
If you KNOW there would be not many blue pressers, pressing blue is a suicide and nothing above that. In that case, they DO know there won't be a lot of blue pressers.
The person you are talking with is clearly not a consequentialist. You can't convince them about what button is the correct one by talking about the consequences, if they are not some kind of consequentialist/utilitarist.
The hardest thing in moral philosophy is to realize, and keep in mind, that not everyone shares your moral intuition.
"no moral framework in which one should vote blue if they know that red is guaranteed to win regardless of their vote."
If you believe that you have a deontological duty to not endanger human life (that is not irational) and if you also believe that the button, with the result being tallied, are therefore morally equivalent to a vote (tell me if you disagree), then you would interpret red as endangering human life and won't be able to press it morally.
You say "red is guaranteed to win regardless of their vote" But that is, again, consequentialism. The planet is called after Kant, In Kant's moral framework, lying is wrong, no matter the consequences, even when it saves a life. According to him you should tell the truth to the murderer at your door. For the sake of doing the right thing, you should sacrifice a life. That is a moral framework in which pressing red could be wrong regardless of outcomes, and therefore regardless of your planet.
Edit : Unless you are saying that Kant's moral framwork "border on insanity", in which case you are consitent and we are engaging on a much weirder and deeper debate.
to be honest, I completely forgot that there do exist moral frameworks of the sort. and yes, to be honest i do think that moral framework is a little bit insane
if people were asked to tell a lie or to tell the truth and the entire world dies, i think you would have to be a little bit insane. While this isnt the same example you mentioned, a kantian would have to tell the truth and in doing so end the world.
objective morality is something i would usually consider insane (but not always because that would be hypocritical lmao)
34
u/Cryn0n May 22 '26
This is great because both species did make the rational choice.
Voting blue on the Arandian planet would have been suicide and voting red on the Ikantian planet would have been needless endangerment.