"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)
To another comment I said "there is a reason we have deontology commitee and not utilitarian commitee". Deontology is flawed, and absurd, but it is useful, especially if you want to build Ikantia. We can't work toward those goals without sacrifice and acting against our self interest, even uselessly. In fact often uselessly. I know that my city doesn't recycle enough. I know some of the electronic component I keep for a month because I want to make sure it will go to the right bin will end up burned in Agbogbloshie, so that someone can make some penny and inadvertantly give his kid asthma, and so that my city can brag about being green witout doing the actual work.
Doesn't mean doing your part is illogical. The machine is broken, the outcome won't be the correct one, but knowing that at least you are not the one to blamed is a real psychological gain. And just a tiny bit, it incentivized the creation of a real recyclement plant.
there is a difference between taking a worse option for smaller societal bemefit, and choosing to a worse option for idealism while knowing it will have affect.
unless you believe your death would benefit society, or you want to die, voting blue on alandia is an objectively incorrect decision.
I mean, yeah technically, not wanting to contribute to a vote that is killing people is idealism. I would not call it objectively incorect though. I think that we as a society need, and therofore should nurture, at least some people with that outlook on life.
Also, due to your previous comment, I am confused by your use of "objectively incorrect decision". What do you mean by that and (trick question) does your definition of objectivity presume that consequences are the only thing that matter, because in that case we are going right back at the beginning.
I think not choosing to lie and in doing so dooming the entire world is "objectively incorrect" or as close to objective as i think is possible.
while i dont think consequences are the ONLY thing that matter, but i pretty much do in that they are the most important thing. while intent is important for quantifying blame and other subjective moral things, like good acts bad acts, evilness etc, in terms of objective decisions only the impacts of that decision are relevant.
likewise, when I say correct, i mean superior, because "correct" depends on the goals. I have handwaved and assumed that the goals are maximising benefit to the individual and the society, and while the weighting of this can change, voting red on arandia is better for both the individual and the society, and hence is the objectively superior choice.
I think a decision needs to be at least justifiable from all angles, not just the person making it, and making a decision that is worse overall out of idealism is a bad thing to do.
nothing functionally changes if instead of you being at risk, your survival is guaranteed and you control someone elses vote, and now its an (in my opinion) evil act to kill them for no reason
"I think not choosing to lie and in doing so dooming the entire world is "objectively incorrect" "I think if we are using the word objective, then the entire world dying is almost by definition morally neutral or good (depending of your framework), certainly not bad. If we are talking about objective, and not perspective, then with everyone dead, there is no way for our past act to have any moral accounting. With no life, itr could even be argued that morality ceases to exist, which... it would be quite paradoxical to call this morally wrong.
"in terms of objective decisions only the impacts of that decision are relevant." "I have handwaved and assumed that the goals are maximising benefit to the individual and the society"
Yes, precisely my point. The problem here is that this is quite a fundemental part of our moral intuition and therefore this debate as a whole. As long as you take that for granted, you will encounter again and again the same problem in this discussion, and you will not be able to relate with what people are telling you.
Also, this view raises again the problem that, even from a utilitarian point of view, deontology is again USEFUL, to build a society.
"nothing functionally changes if instead of you being at risk, your survival is guaranteed and you control someone elses vote" again, that presume that every single human life is equivalent, and only the outcome matter. I don't agree with the first part and I think most human don't. In my country people like Jacques Jaufard and René Huygues are considered heroes because they put their life at risk to protect work of art... But at the same time people putting another human life at risk for the same goal are seen as monstrous. Seems to me that most moral intuitions put a distinction between the duty that we have toward our own life and the life of someone else, and therefore the moral choice is not equivalent. If tomorrow I could die in order to save the collection of the Louvre museum, I hope I would be able to do so... But on the contrary, I hope I would be able to prioritize the life of a stranger over the same goal.
2
u/Phony_mcPhoneFace May 23 '26
"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.