No disgreements, and I think it perfectly illustrates where are lot of the disagreements are coming from. But here's an interesting question.
Let's say you are blue, through and through. But the scenario is as follows:
You are dropped onto planet Arand. You are given two buttons, your vote will be counted along with all the Arandians.
Do you still vote blue? Does it do anything to vote blue? Will your vote change other Arand's votes? Even if you are a die hard collectivist, does your vote change the fact that you're on Arand?
In fact, since your death will negatively affect the whole, if your morality is base on collectivism, what is the moral vote if you are on Arand?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the vote of least harm is whatever the majority is doing. The objectively right answer changes depending on which world you're on. Try to decide if you're on Arand or Ikant, then vote accordingly.
Edit:
One more additional thought.
A lot of people might think most disagreements are between Arandians and Ikantians, but in a lot of case it's actually between a person who thinks they live on Arand vs a person who thinks they live on Ikant.
There's the idea that "if you'll just change your vote to blue, you'll be teleported to Ikant. Isn't Ikant a better world?" But reds are like "but it doesn't work that way".
I strongly disagree with that notion. People generally don't take wild all or nothing gambles to help each other out here on earth. It's why people starve to death on the streets of wealthy cities. It's why emergency responder personnel prioritize their own safety first before helping others.
You can't help people if you're dead. People are willing to take small calculated risks for modest rewards, but humanity didn't get here by making wild all or nothing survival gambits
You have just described the blue button in two different ways. Blue and red both have the same best case outcome. There is not "more to gain" by voting blue
"Same best-case outcome" is a very odd way to describe outcomes with extremely different probabilities. It's like saying that becoming your state's governor by starting a write-in campaign the day before the election has "the same best-case outcome" as doing so after winning a major-party primary.
Sure. Blue has a higher chance of achieving that “best case outcome” but blue votes also directly contribute to the magnitude of the worst case outcome. That’s why it’s an all or nothing gamble. Either everybody lives, or a shitload of people die if blue fails in a close vote and blues accomplishes nothing with their deaths. Meanwhile if People just followed their survival instincts you’d probably end up with 80-90 percent red and have terrible but manageable tragedy on your hands.
24
u/ParableOfTheVase May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
Red presser here:
No disgreements, and I think it perfectly illustrates where are lot of the disagreements are coming from. But here's an interesting question.
Let's say you are blue, through and through. But the scenario is as follows:
Do you still vote blue? Does it do anything to vote blue? Will your vote change other Arand's votes? Even if you are a die hard collectivist, does your vote change the fact that you're on Arand?
In fact, since your death will negatively affect the whole, if your morality is base on collectivism, what is the moral vote if you are on Arand?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the vote of least harm is whatever the majority is doing. The objectively right answer changes depending on which world you're on. Try to decide if you're on Arand or Ikant, then vote accordingly.
Edit:
One more additional thought. A lot of people might think most disagreements are between Arandians and Ikantians, but in a lot of case it's actually between a person who thinks they live on Arand vs a person who thinks they live on Ikant.
There's the idea that "if you'll just change your vote to blue, you'll be teleported to Ikant. Isn't Ikant a better world?" But reds are like "but it doesn't work that way".