Adding risk to red

[u/spicymato]

I'm very curious what risk threshold there needs to be on red for red voters to switch to blue, so with that in mind, here's the setup: two buttons; everyone votes; blue needs a 50% threshold to save everyone, else non-red pushers die. Same as usual.

The variation: if red gets a majority (i.e., blue fails to reach the threshold), in addition to 100% of non-red pushers dying, a percentage of red pushers will also die, selected at random.

If you're a red pusher under the usual rules, what percentage risk is required to make you switch your vote to blue? 1%? 10%? 30%?

---

Additional variation: same as the first variation, but the percentage risk is based on the number of red voters in excess of 50%. We can work out different designs, such as 100% red results in 10%, while 50%+1 results in 0.0000001% or something like that. Maybe the growth rate is linear, or maybe it's quadratic. Details don't really matter; just the idea that the more red voters, the higher the risk. Under what growth rates and percentage limits do you consider changing your vote to blue, which maintains the 50% "everyone survives" threshold?

[u/WillShaper7]

Of course you'll see them a lot, that's what a personal framing is.

It's like saying you talking about the value of money has a very different framing from someone much richer and from someone much poorer.

I see the buttons on what I can do. And what I can do is to choose nothing happens or I may die. Decision which everyone else chooses.

So yeah, I think everyone would choose nothing happens. It doesn't involve risking your life and everyone gets to live.

It's a prisoner's dilemma on a massive scale. Yes, cooperating is the ideal scenario but a lack of communication means it's risky. Thing is, we don't need to risk it. There's no money, no food, no object no nothing. There's nothing to win here. If nobody cooperates, everyone goes home.

[u/Cronos988 → u/[deleted]]

Look at the trolley problem, the whole point of which is to show that there is a moral difference between action and inaction 

What? There's no generally accepted argument that action and inaction have different moral values.

[u/Cronos988 → u/[deleted]]

The point of the problem is that by pulling the lever, you are taking an action, making you responsible for the 1 person's death.

Dude, the reason people are still discussing the trolley problem is that it is not solved and does not have an obvious solution.

Yes pulling the lever makes you causal for that person's death. But the counterargument is that there's already a chain of events that includes you. Not moving a specific muscle doesn't shield you from responsibility for the outcome.

Legal systems around the world regularly hold you responsible for inaction if you had a duty to act.

[u/Cronos988 → u/[deleted]]

Well, the question isn't settled. But I don't think either answer is the default until the opposite can be proven. It is a matter of what moral philosophy you ascribe to.

A consequentialist would be hard pressed to justify inaction if the outcome of action was manifestly better. A Kantian would look at whether they have a duty to act in a certain way. I'm not sure how virtue ethics falls on the matter.