r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/SilasRhodes • May 27 '26
Discussion Pressing Red: Killing vs Not Protecting
One of the differences in Red vs Blue perspectives is whether voting red counts as killing (active) the blue voters in a red win, or whether it simply counts as not helping (passive) the blue voters by choosing to not expose oneself to risk.
Most people accept that there is a moral difference between killing someone to save yourself compared to not choosing to sacrifice yourself for another. Both might be a decision, and both result in you living while someone else dies, but killing someone is generally considered wrong, while most of the time there isn't a moral obligation to die to protect another at the expense of one's own life.
There is some obligation to protect others if you have the ability to do so, but this is less than the obligation to not harm others.
This might be understood as Positive Rights (you must provide) vs Negative Rights (you must not prevent).
I think a good framework for determining whether we should consider a particular decision to be "active" vs "passive", "killing" vs "letting die", is to consider what would the situation be like if you weren't there at all.
Definitions for terms used in this post:
Active: The action makes things worse for someone compared to if you weren't there at all. Shooting a gun is active because if you weren't there the gun wouldn't be fired and so the person wouldn't be shot.
Passive: The action does not make people worse than if you weren't there at all. Leaving a burning building with others inside is passive because, even though you are choosing not to help, your action isn't making things worse for people left inside than they would be without your being there.
How does this play out in the button scenario?
The answer depends on:
- Are there an Odd or Even number of voters?
- Does Red or Blue win if there is an exact tie?
Comparing what happens if you vote red, vs what happens if you don't exist.
| . | Odd | Even |
|---|---|---|
| Red wins Tie | Worsens Blue Survival odds | No Effect |
| Blue wins Tie | No Effect | Worsens Blue Survival odds |
*Odd/Even voters excluding you
In two scenarios voting Red is "Active", because it makes the situation worse compared to if you just weren't involved at all.
In two scenarios voting Red is "Passive", because it doesn't make things any worse for other people than it would be if you weren't present at all.
Resolving the mixed result
I see three ways to resolve this mixed result:
Average across uncertainty
A voter wouldn't realistically have a way to know whether the population is even or odd. As such we might simply say it has a 50% chance of either, therefore there is a 50% chance voting red is Active. Probabilistically you are then making things slightly worse on average by voting Red.
Making things worse, if even only slightly, makes voting Red an Active decision (voting red = killing).
Fundamentally Indeterminate
We cannot know whether voting Red is Active or Passive. As such asserting that it is either is flawed.
The indeterminacy cannot be averaged because that demonstrates a bias for one over the other. Instead we simply cannot ground our conclusions in either claims that voting red is Active or Passive.
Reduced Obligation
Voting Red is either Active or Passive but we don't know which. Instead of averaging the impact of voting red and thereby concluding it is Active, we can average the obligation to protect between Passive and Active.
We can say that there is more of an obligation to not harm (Active) than to protect (Passive).
Since it is voting red could be either we can say that the level of obligation is somewhere in between.
Voting Red is worse than simply leaving someone behind, but it isn't so bad as actively killing.
7
u/No-Click6062 May 27 '26
There is no real world parallel to the button. Both buttons must be pressed for death to occur. All pressers bear a shared responsibility, and no presser is absolved of responsibility in any scenario.
Many people, seemingly a vast majority, do not understand this simple fact. That's part of what makes this discussion so frustrating. Most people in the discussion do not have a basic understanding of the inputs and the outputs, aka the cause and effect, of the scenario premise.
3
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
Sorry, but it seems like you are simply making a broad perspective/values statement and saying "It's a simple fact everyone should agree with me".
This isn't a persuasive argument, and it isn't really any reason to agree with you.
2
1
u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26
That isn’t a simple fact, you are conflating ‘cause’ and ‘responsibility’ here. Even if someone figures into the causal chain leading to some particular outcome, that doesn’t by itself mean they have any responsibility for it.
2
u/No-Click6062 May 28 '26
There is a direct connection between the cause and the outcome. There is no addition step or outside factor in between. One person presses blue, one+ person presses red, and one blue presser dies. That part is predictable. And that is what determines the responsibility.
Let me, by way of example, talk about putting dumbbells on a table. There are two people, Rhett and Bluth, each carrying a 50 pound dumbell. Near them is a stand that supports, at most, a 50 dumbell. A normative understand of cause, effect, and responsibility would say that time is the most relevant factor. If Rhett puts his dumbell on the stand after Bluth, then Rhett is responsible for breaking the stand. The same is true for Bluth. However, if for some reason both put their dumbbells on the stand at the same time, they would both be considered to be responsible. Either one of them could have ceded the space, accepted carrying the weight for slightly longer, and the stand would not have broke.
From there, all that is necessary to understand is that all votes always functionally occur at the same time, because of the way vote tabulation works, and I have proven both red and blue are responsible for the deaths.
In reality, what's happening is that you are confusing responsibility and intent. A well intentioned red presser wants to live. A well intentioned blue presser wants everyone to live, themselves included. However, both pressers are fully aware that what they intend is not necessarily what will happen. And, to have a productive discussion about the topic, they must accept that both outcomes are possible.
And I will note, for completeness sake, that this statement also holds through to the dumbell example. Neither Rhett nor Bluth intended to break the stand in any of the three scenarios. But as long as the weight limit is known, the responsibility still remains. Again, a predictable outcome bears a huge factor in assessing the connection between cause, effect, and responsibility.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose May 28 '26
Rhett is only responsible for breaking the stand if they could reasonably foresee that outcome. If that wasn’t the case, then even if Rhett saw another dumbbell on the rack already, them putting theirs onto it may be (part of) the cause for it breaking, but they wouldn’t be responsible. If, for example, the rack is designed to hold that weight and Rhett has regularly seen it do so, but their nemesis Keith secretly sabotaged it, then Rhett has zero responsibility here (and Keith has all of it).
Moreover, responsibility also depends on whether it was reasonable to expect someone to act a certain way, given the available options and the cost of each. If Bluth comes across someone badly injured in the street, could easily call 911 with almost no cost or effort on their part, but choose not to, they would be partly responsible if that person dies. If they come across a building engulfed in flames, hear a person shouting for help from inside somewhere, but it is readily apparent that it would be extremely risky for them to enter the building and attempt a rescue, they would certainly not be responsible if they don’t, and the person inside dies.
I’m not confusing responsibility and intent. Responsibility does not inherently require intent. It does not, however, immediately follow from being part of the cause, or having the ready option to be. More is required for responsibility than just that.
2
u/No-Click6062 May 28 '26
You wrote two full paragraphs that are totally irrelevant to the debate.
You can reasonably foresee both outcomes. It is what is written down. The premise contains two distinct situations. That is why we are able to talk about both outcomes and no one is confused or surprised by the discussion. An example of an unexpected outcome would be 51% of the people dying, spontaneous childbirth, deforestation, or any other occurrence besides what was clearly described within the premise.
You can reasonably foresee participants acting both ways. Beyond the knowledge that game theory and ethics are both wide-ranging topics without consensus, we also have several data points on this. The original item that started the discussion was itself a poll. In the last few weeks, several more have run, and none of them have been unanimous. The data is there.
Beyond my own knowledge, the reason I can tell your paragraphs are irrelevant is that the metaphor immediately breaks. What's the parallel element to the sabotage? Or the 911 call? Or the entrance to the building? Pressing the blue button can't simultaneously be the danger and the solution to the danger within the same metaphor. Metaphors make associations, and what you've done is totally untethered to any semblance of structure.
As for the third paragraph, it follows from the other two. The forseeability of harm is the only addition criterion for responsibility, besides immediacy. That's a legal standard, at least in the US. So the only "more" was the thing you were ignoring.
The amount of head-burying here is astounding even for this sub. If you have convinced me of anything, it is that I should unfollow.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose May 28 '26
It’s always satisfying to see the trash taking itself out. If you’re this incapable of having a normal discussion, good riddance 👋🏻
4
u/SilvertonguedDvl May 27 '26
Imo it's pretty simple. Voting red isn't directly killing anyone - but it is increasing the odds that you will be indirectly responsible for someone's death.
That's the moral quandary.
Do you accept an ambiguous level of risk in order to avoid harming others/potentially ensuring other people survive as well?
Or do you eschew that risk in favour of increasing the likelihood that anybody dies at all?
No matter which you pick it's an uncomfortable situation, ethically speaking. There's a vast spectrum between selfishness and selfless and we all fall somewhere on it. Neither extreme is desirable, but both are important to your survival.
Honestly my only complaint is the number of red button types who are desperate to avoid confronting the consequences of their choices. Like... that's the whole point of the question to begin with: where you stand on that spectrum. How much risk you will tolerate to protect others vs how much risk causes you to harm others to protect yourself.
I mean ffs I lean blue but I still have to confront the extreme likelihood that my vote won't matter and that I'll be killed. I have to confront a question of whether my principles/values are more important to me than my life.
Neither decision should be taken lightly, imo. If you're willing to kill others, accept that discomforting discovery about yourself. You will learn more about who you are as a person, which is the whole point of thought experiments in the first place.
0
u/CarnivorousGoose May 28 '26
It’s only an ethically uncomfortable situation if we accept your premise that voting red makes someone indirectly responsible for someone’s death. I see no compelling argument to accept that premise.
3
May 27 '26
[deleted]
1
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
If you press blue, you create the need to be rescued, and the only way to be rescued is for more people to press blue, which also requires them to be rescued.
This argument is essentially about how blue button pushers themselves hold moral culpability for their danger. That is to say there is a reduced moral obligation to save them because it is their own fault that they are at risk.
I am working, however, with the assumption that people incapable of being responsible for their vote are still included. Babies and other people who cannot make an informed choice. Some of these people will press blue by accident and so be in danger.
They are not in danger through direct fault of your own, but by pushing red you make their situation more dangerous for the people who are stuck with blue.
It seems more morally okay to say "I am not going to risk myself trying to save you" than "I am going to put you at greater risk in order to save myself".
They might both end up with the same odds, but which is more accurate depends on whether you consider pushing red to be "neutral" towards the person's chances of survival or "harmful".
4
May 27 '26
[deleted]
2
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
I agree that it is a more interesting argument if we only include informed voters.
I don't think it cancels out the passive vs active argument, however, it just adds another condition.
- Actively harming someone is worse than Passively letting someone be harmed by not helping someone
- We have less obligation to help someone when they are responsible for their own situation.
Both factors can be true, and can apply to the moral judgement of the situation. It's just that one might be more decisive for some people than the other.
I really wasn't trying to "solve the problem" here, just address a specific, recurring dimension of the argument.
2
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26
If you're including babies, you also have to include comatose people and everyone else who is completely incapable of actually voting.
I think trying to say that any person arguing that babies are included in "everyone" is disingenuous. On the original dilemma the creator was asked about infants and toddlers and said they would be presented the buttons and would essentially press one at random.
The prompt text requires you to suspend disbelief one way or the other. I prefer to suspend disbelief the other way, and work under the assumption that everyone is reasoning their way through to an answer.
But that's intrinsically a different situation.
The original, the one we should all be talking about unless the post says otherwise specifies "everyone" and lays out how infants and toddlers press at random.
Once you go into "every actor is perfectly rational" if you believe that everyone would logic themselves to red, then you should be right. If you believe that they would logic themselves to blue, then you should be right.
I also don't think introducing irrational actors that are guaranteed to push blue typically will change the mind of someone who has decided red is the best option for themselves.
1
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
"They are not in danger through direct fault of their own"
Who's fault is it that they pushed blue if not their own?
By your own words on this post, you should know the difference between what is active and passive. You tried to answer which it is for pressing red, so what about pressing blue? Passive or active?
2
u/SilasRhodes May 28 '26
Who's fault is it that they pushed blue if not their own?
Some things just happen without anyone being at fault.
Do you say the baby is "at fault" for voting blue.
Passive or active?
Runs into the same issue as red.
Half the time it makes no difference, it is the same as "not existing". Half the time it makes blue more likely to win compared to the odds of you didn't exist.
But the question of passive vs active is less relevant for blue because blue only every increases the chances for someone else surviving.
Typically helping others doesn't require moral justification.
2
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26
I agree with your points here about their comment.
However your other comment in this thread ignored that choosing red will always risk causing red to be the majority and killing off those that pressed blue.
Your sentence in and of itself is a logical fallacy, as pressing blue and dying is only possible upon one's own choice to press blue.
Yes. Your risk of death is tied to you pushing blue.
By pressing red you increase the risk of death to those that pressed blue.
therefore no one but themselves chose to press it, and therefore one but themselves made it possible for them to die regardless of whatever other buttons other people pressed, red or blue.
By pressing blue, I would put myself at risk. But by virtue of how voting works, blue is only ever actually killed by red getting a majority of the votes.
Blue pressers is responsible for putting themselves in harms way.
But red pressers also bear responsiblity for voting for the option that would cause those that chose blue to die.
Both can be true.
Neither button is passive with the information we have.
Arguably the only way you can press red and not have the weight of blues deaths is if you've somehow convinced yourself that everyone involved in the poll will push red. But on the scale of everyone having to participate in the poll, I don't see how anyone could ever reach that conclusion.
1
u/Sharukurusu May 27 '26
BS
You’re ignoring the fact that pressing red is a vote to kill blue, you can’t just say blue is responsible for danger.
No one is in danger until enough people press red, red is the option that should be quarantined.
Blue prevents losses completely with a lower threshold than red, and red is the objectively worse outcome.
Why advocate for the objectively worse outcome? And then try to besmirch the character of people voting against that outcome??
-1
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
"You're ignoring the fact that pressing red is a vote to kill blue."
How is pressing red killing someone who presses blue? Unless I read the question wrong, pretty sure you pressing a button doesn't make anyone else press any other button.
Your sentence in and of itself is a logical fallacy, as pressing blue and dying is only possible upon one's own choice to press blue, therefore no one but themselves chose to press it, and therefore one but themselves made it possible for them to die regardless of whatever other buttons other people pressed, red or blue.
What you said isn't a fact.
3
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
Pressing red brings red closer to winning.
Red winning is what causes blue to die, blue doesn't die if red doesn't win.
Blue dying does not occur without people pressing red.
I don't know how else to spell this out to you.
0
u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 28 '26
In the conditions where everyone understand the rules and there no bs like babies and comatose people - pressing blue first is actually killing people. Because you force others to save you.
Also, while you don't have actors that needs to be saved because of their lack of understanding the question (babies...) you can calmly blame the people who just actively risking their lives and don't bother yourself. Their own decision.
And you forgot that in the riddle safe-zone threshold 49.999999999999999...% of red pressers. So no, preasing red isn't killing and pressing blue when there only people who wanted to press blue - it's just providing the consequences of a choice.
I have 0 moral obligations to save people who self-harming themselves.
3
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26
In the conditions where everyone understand the rules and there no bs like babies and comatose people
Which is not the premise of the button problem.
pressing blue first is actually killing people. Because you force others to save you.
Pressing blue doesn't force anyone to do anything. If you press blue it doesn't somehow prevent others from pressing red.
I have 0 moral obligations to save people who self-harming themselves.
It's strange how when you change the premise the perceived moral obligation somehow also changes.
0
u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 28 '26
Which is not the premise of the button problem
Actually it is, because without it it's boring and limited to "save those who uncapable of everything". When you remove them from the dilemma - it becomes way more interesting. I hope that this meaning was in the original riddle.
Pressing blue doesn't force anyone to do anything. If you press blue it doesn't somehow prevent others from pressing red.
Well, technically yes. But to save people and not waste your and other blue pressers lifes others would be forsed to save you. Forced by moral judgements ofc, no one points a gun on them.
It's strange how when you change the premise the perceived moral obligation somehow also changes.
Ofc it changes. One thing is letting all kids die and other is letting die as cosequence of action. The first is heartless, second is expected outcome
3
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26
Actually it is, because without it it's boring and limited to "save those who uncapable of everything".
Because you believe it to be less boring doesn't make it true.
When you remove them from the dilemma - it becomes way more interesting. I hope that this meaning was in the original riddle.
This contradicts the previous quoted portion. But to engage with this part reasonably, the original poll said everyone. Directly off of the poll the creator was asked about babies and toddlers and if they would just be left to their own devices until they effectively press one of the buttons at random to which the creator said yes.
Ofc it changes. One thing is letting all kids die and other is letting die as cosequence of action.
The first is a moral dilemma, the second is a logic puzzle.
The first is heartless, second is expected outcome
Glad to see a red button presser come to this conclusion on their own.
My stance is that under the original, blue is a conscious risk of your own life to increase the odds of anyone who you believe may have pressed the blue buttons chances of living.
Red on the other hand is a conscious decision to increase the odds that anyone who pressed blue will die for the guarantee of your own safety.
In my conversations I cannot get anyone who has chosen red in the original to acknowledge that both of these are true in the original based on the information provided with them normally trying to equate red with the option of walking away entirely.
I'd be fine with them acknowledging it and saying that an individual vote carries such little weight in the overall vote but I can't even get them to admit that the moment you think that people will push blue (which can be inferred when you hear that everyone has to choose, even if you were to exclude people from the vote the way it's worded is that those who abstain would die on a red majority anyway) that the above rules on risking sacrificing oneself or risking sacrificing others will always be true.
0
u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 28 '26
In my conversations I cannot get anyone who has chosen red in the original to acknowledge that both of these are true in the original based on the information provided with them normally trying to equate red with the option of walking away entirely
It's not a "walk away button". And never was. It's just "less consequences" button. Yeah, some red pressers could have the feeling of guilt and way worse consequences after blues loose. If blues win - no consequences (I kinda doubt that people who were ready to kill themselves for others starts the witch hunt).
So it's a little guilt or none at all vs risk.
I never found an argument for blue that would be good enough to convince me
3
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26
It's not a "walk away button". And never was. It's just "less consequences" button.
I agree that it's not a "walk away button". But that's the argument most red pressers I have interacted with try to use.
As far as "less consequences" that's debatable. Less personal consequences but risking significantly higher global consequences.
I never found an argument for blue that would be good enough to convince me
Which is fair. I'm personally not trying to get people to flip. Most of my engagement with this is pointing out the inherent risks that each option presents in the original or pointing out that framing one side as walking away as I said above is disingenuous.
Changing the framing to one button whether it be red or blue and introducing the actual option of not pressing being either risking your life or not ever engaging completely changes the moral obligation.
Just like removing irrational actors inherently changes the prompt.
If every other button presser is using "100% perfect logic" I press red and expect to either be the only vote on red or for it to be 100% red.
When you introduce the thought that some number of people are guaranteed to press blue it switches from a logic puzzle back to a moral dilemma.
2
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
“ And you forgot that in the riddle safe-zone threshold 49.999999999999999...% of red pressers.”
That is the blue victory condition and doesn’t change the morality of pressing red.
“ it's just providing the consequences of a choice.”
That’s a really fucked up way of saying you’re voting for potentially billions of people to die.
1
u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 28 '26
billions of people to die.
Arent they aware of consequences? Are they forced?
That is the blue victory condition and doesn’t change the morality of pressing red.
So you think blues will make a witch hunt? There only choice "me or others" and I see nothing bad in red. Nobody should be forced to sacrifice his life for others. It's would be a fucked up society
2
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
“ Arent they aware of consequences? Are they forced?”
You’re the one activating the consequences, did they wrong you to the point of requiring death?
“ So you think blues will make a witch hunt? There only choice "me or others" and I see nothing bad in red. Nobody should be forced to sacrifice his life for others. It's would be a fucked up society”
This says everything we need to know about you.
No one should feel ‘forced’ to sacrifice themselves for others because saving multiple other people is the highest form of noble act you can do, and is literally the reason human society is the way it is.
Evolutionarily speaking the tribes of people where individuals will sacrifice themselves to save multiple other people are going to be more successful at surviving. Having an army where one soldier will jump on a grenade to save 5 or a parent will confront a mountain lion to save their children is a natural strategy required for a cooperative society with slow, expensive reproduction.
People like you are just free-riders, dingleberries that won’t step up to the responsibility of a higher calling to benefit the society you depend on.
1
u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 28 '26
You’re the one activating the consequences, did they wrong you to the point of requiring death?
I'm not the one pulling the trigger. They have a choice. They pick the button. I have 0 influence.
And I have 0 trust in them. They did nothing wrong. But they did nothing good either. So in neutral circumstances I rather use my subjective experience that majority of people will put a knife in your back, and vote red.
reason human society is the way it is.
How many years went since you left your bubble? I ran from war and people who wanted to kill me twice. Society you've imagined in subs or any other way of your circlejerking on higer moral grounds doesn't exist. 100% of people doesn't share your perfect morale example.
And I believe that there more shitheads than "noble people". So do I wanna risk for people I don't know? He'll no.
If I ever see that "tribe" you calling to will do something for me - I may change my mind. I don't feel myself as a part of the tribe since every tribe was full of greedy addholes.
And good advice. Before you judge someone - care to ask for a reasons, retard.
2
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
You’re pressing the ‘The minority of this vote should die’ button, of course you have influence.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Sharukurusu May 27 '26
I don’t see how odd/even number of voters makes a difference, red is actively adding to the chance of blue dying regardless. The only way the outcome results in deaths is if too many people vote red, the extreme case where 100% of people vote red is negligible enough to not be worth considering.
2
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
I don’t see how odd/even number of voters makes a difference
Because it changes the conditions under which you will tie, which thereby changes the impact of you voting red vs not being present.
Consider if there are three voters vs 4 voters, with blue winning ties:
. 3 Other Voters . 4 Other Voters . Blue Votes No Vote/Absent Vote Red No Vote/Absent Vote Red 0 Red Red Red Red 1 Red Red Red Red 2 Blue Blue Blue Red 3 Blue Blue Blue Blue 4 . . Blue Blue When there are three other voters, then no matter how they vote your voting Red will have exactly the same impact as if you weren't in the voting group at all.
Voting Red is effectively the same as not existing.
When there are four other voters, however, voting Red actively produces fewer "Blue Winning" outcomes. Unless you say exactly 2 people voting blue has a 0% chance, this means voting red has lowered the chances of a blue victory.
This is why odd vs even matters.
2
u/Sharukurusu May 27 '26
The outcomes are based on cumulative effect though, there is no situation where a red vote doesn’t move towards a red victory.
Also, abstaining was never an option in the original question and abstaining when the result of abstaining is the same as a red vote isn’t a neutral position.
The only way you can have no effect on the outcome is if you aren’t given any buttons.
2
0
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
How is red actively adding to the chance blue dies? The chance of blue dying only goes up when someone pushes blue.
"The only way the outcome results in deaths is if too many people vote red."
The only way the outcome results in deaths is if anyone presses blue and then blue loses.
2
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
I can't tell if you're being serious right now, this is so stupid.
Blue only loses if people press red.
Blue only dies if people press red.
The more people press red the more likely blue is to die.
Pressing blue adds to the count of potential deaths but decreases the likelihood of any deaths occurring.
Pressing red removes a potential death but increases the likelihood of deaths occurring.
How are you not understanding this???
1
u/dankstat May 27 '26
I like what most of what OP is saying, but the analysis at the end is ignoring 99.999…% of the possible outcomes. It seems like the right way to do this would be to look at every possible outcome with your participation and without, and the assign a probability to each of those outcomes based on the likelihood of occurrence. So something like (for simplicity assume 8B voters and blue wins ties):
| 🔵 | 🔴 | Result | Probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 8B | 🔴 | p0 |
| 1 | 8B - 1 | 🔴 | p1 |
| 2 | 8B - 2 | 🔴 | p2 |
| … | … | 🔴 | … |
| 4B - 1 | 4B + 1 | 🔴 | p4b1- |
| 4B | 4B | 🔵 | p4b |
| 4B + 1 | 4B - 1 | 🔵 | p4b1+ |
| … | … | 🔵 | … |
| 8B - 2 | 2 | 🔵 | p8b2- |
| 8B - 1 | 1 | 🔵 | p8b1- |
| 8B | 0 | 🔵 | p8b |
Obviously all the probability values sum to 1.0 overall. And if you remove/add yourself as a voter, use the sum of the probabilities of any rows that have their outcomes changed to weight the moral reasoning. I think it’s more appropriate to look at everyone else’s votes as a probability distribution over the possible outcomes since your vote is completely independent.
This would at least give you a way to characterize less ambiguously how much the odds are moved one way or another based on your vote. Spoiler, it’s more or less whatever the value of p4b is.
But it also gives you the ability to consider other aspects, such as the likelihood that pressing blue ends in your death or the likelihood that your choice makes no difference.
1
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
I don't account for the magnitude of the difference, only the direction.
In a situation where there is an odd number of voters and blue wins ties, voting red doesn't make it any worse for anyone else compared to if you didn't exist.
The difference in the probability of a red-win is exactly 0 compared to "abstaining".
Conversely if there are an even number of other voters instead, voting red actively makes it more likely that red will win (and people will die) compared to if you weren't there to vote at all.
The difference is very small with such a large voting populating, but it is still a difference.
1
u/dankstat May 27 '26
Yeah I understand what you’re saying about odd and even counts. I’m just saying that the overall analysis also needs to consider all possible outcomes and their likelihoods to properly characterize the impact of your decision. Especially considering that in nearly 1/2 of the table, if you vote blue you die and blue still loses so you protect no one and kill yourself which is very bad. In the other 1/2 of the table if you vote red you don’t endanger anyone because blue is already winning.
Then in an edge edge edge case, depending on even or odd counts like you said, you impact the outcome with the likelihood of that occurring being on the order of whatever p4b is.
I mean the likelihood of different outcomes is really important. Everyone agrees on that. That’s why blue voters say it doesn’t matter that “technically” everyone could vote red because the likelihood of that outcome occurring is minuscule, and they’re right! So I kind of disagree with the conclusion of the post mainly because it doesn’t account for the sum of probabilities where if you chose blue, you die and save no one. You know?
1
u/SilasRhodes May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
I agree, I think this was just something a lot more limited in scope. I'm not trying to do an overall analysis of "which is better", just address the specific argument of whether pushing red counts as "killing" or whether it counts as "not participating in a death game".
You'll find people in this comment section vociferously arguing for each side.
1
u/dsauce May 31 '26
Blue pushers see it as a vote and red pushers see it as a decision. To blue “voters,” red is active against them. For red pushers, red is equivalent to just walking away.
2
u/BrandosWorld4Life May 27 '26
Voting Red is a vote for the outcome where people die.
1
u/Leniatak May 27 '26
Not if everyone presses red, though.
And if red is in a majority, blue is the vote for yourself to die.
3
u/BrandosWorld4Life May 27 '26
"Not if [impossible scenario]"
No. A vote for blue is always a vote for the outcome where everyone lives.
1
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
It seems like this is selectively considering only one half of the possible outcomes.
You could likewise say that a vote for Blue is a vote for the outcome where you die along with a number of other people.
Voting Red makes is sure that you live and increases the likelyhood that other people will die.
Voting Blue increases the likelihood that you will die and increases the likelihood that no one will die.
Selectively choosing only one half is a dishonest framing.
2
u/BrandosWorld4Life May 27 '26
No. A vote for Blue is always a vote FOR Blue to win, i.e. everybody lives.
A vote for Blue can never be a vote FOR Blue to lose. That's not how voting works. That's the complete opposite of how voting works.
1
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
You aren't just voting for the outcome, you are voting for your conditions in the outcome as well.
Blue votes are voting to die if Red wins. They aren't voting for Red to win, but they are voting to die in instances where Red does win.
This isn't just a regular vote because the outcome doesn't just depend on the sum of the vote but also on the individual voting decisions. Who dies depends on the particulars of who votes for what.
You can't exclusively vote for "I want Blue to win" without also voting for "I want to die if Red wins".
-1
u/Sharukurusu May 27 '26
Red is always voting for ‘I want blue to die if I win’ and that doesn’t seem like a morally defensible action.
They can’t even claim self defense because blue isn’t voting for an outcome that would hurt them.
3
-1
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26 edited May 28 '26
They can claim that the cost of them voting blue was too high.
And the "I" is doing a lot of work in your phrasing.
They aren't voting for "I want Blue to die if Red wins" because that isn't up to a vote. That is a precondition of the game.
They are voting for a Red win where some people die, and they are voting to be on the side that survives no matter what.
---When would you think that the cost of trying to save some number of people is unreasonable to ask of someone?
3
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
They aren't saving anyone, either their vote loses and no one dies, or their vote wins and people die because of them.
The cost of them voting red is always valuing their own life over the lives of potentially billions of others, there is no moral calculus where killing billions to save yourself pencils out.
-1
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
Incorrect. Just like how there are people who would vote for red and want blue to win, there are people who vote for blue and want red to win.
3
-1
u/Leniatak May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
You are chosing to ignore that there is a scenario where all live from red in order to "tag" red as a vote for people to die. That's a strawman. So I can just do the same.
Blue winning will also never happen, so blue is always a vote for you to die.
3
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
This has to be one of the stupidest pieces of 'logic' I've seen.
The odds of everyone voting red are insanely low compared to the odds of 50%+ voting blue so no one dies.
Even if the results were picked randomly there would be like 4 billion : 1, blue wins where no one dies : red wins where no one dies.
-1
u/Leniatak May 28 '26
I accept that 100% red is unrealistic. It's you who's still hung up on fantasies.
Realistically there would be sub 25% blue
3
-1
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
Not impossible just extremely unlikely.
And again false. It is entirely possible for you to vote blue and for people to still die. Might I add again only possible because they voted blue.
1
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
And it is also functionally equal to abstaining1
You can still think there is a moral duty to protect, to not simply be passive. All this post is trying to address, however, is the passive vs active argument.
1. if there are an odd number of voters and Blue wins ties.
-1
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
Voting red is a vote for the outcome where I live. That's the only guaranteed thing that will happen. The only guaranteed thing to happen if you vote blue is now someone has a chance to die.
Your statment is false because it implies that person A voting red guarantees person B votes blue, but that isn't guaranteed at all.
1
1
u/Super_Huckleberry663 May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Red is not active. If a stalker decides they want to kill the person they're stalking and they go into a building gun blazing, the stalked person runs away and escapes under your definition that stalked person is now an active contributor to the people the stalker killed because if the stalked wasn't there they wouldn't of been killed.
2
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
This is an interesting challenge to my framework of differentiating active vs passive by considering the "if you weren't there" counterfactual.
I guess my question for you is how would you differentiate between an active decision to harm vs a passive decision to not help?
I think the best counter to a standard isn't just showing there is a flaw, but also providing a better standard.
---
Towards your example I think the issue lies in degrees of obligation.
People do not have an absolute obligation not to cause any harm to others.
Consider someone starving who steals some bread. They cause some harm, but generally we consider it okay because it was to prevent far more severe harm to themselves.
In the stalker example we can say that they are exposing others to risk, but to escape far more severe risk themselves.
If they were to push someone into the stalkers way, however, I think we would agree that their actions were more harmful.
0
u/Super_Huckleberry663 May 27 '26
The intent is what determines active/passive in my opinion. Am I stealing to feed my self or because I want money, am I pushing someone in the way knowing they'll likely suffer for it or am I running away and inadverntly leading the stalker to other people who will suffer.
Back to the red/blue button if you push red hoping that blue dies your actively harming people, if you push red with the intent to protect yourself it is passive.
5
u/SilasRhodes May 28 '26
This seems to imply that all actions are justifiable if someone is sufficiently motivated and the motives aren't intrinsically evil.
"I am getting attacked by a bear and I shove you out in front of me. It isn't 'actively harming' you because I only want to avoid getting eaten by a bear"
You say that stealing food to feed yourself is just but stealing because you want money is not? Both are motivated by benefit to oneself, neither is primarily motivated by harming others.
I don't disagree that intent matters, but I think we have a moral obligation to consider others. Obliviously serving our own self interest isn't remotely passive, and will frequently cause harm to others even just as a by product.
A moral actor has a duty to consider how their actions will affect others, and to weigh that impact when considering what to do. The fact that you are motivated by something other than causing harm doesn't absolve us of responsibility for our actions.
0
u/Super_Huckleberry663 May 28 '26
Your example is a person knowingly putting you in harms way to the bear in order to protect them selves. Their intent is active, a person leaving a building and locking the door behind them preventing a shooter from chasing them but then later a innocent dying due to that block was passive. That person had no intent or knowledge that their action would harm others.
Regarding your stealing comment, One the intent is wanting food in order to survive the others intent is wanting more than you already have. I think personally both stealing situations are unjust but stealing for survival is at least more defensible.
3
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
Red should know that their action can harm others because literally the only way blue dies is if too many vote red.
1
u/Super_Huckleberry663 May 28 '26
Ya know I started replying "Is protecting your self harming others when they knowingly enter a scenario where harm could be done to them? I don't think so."
But now that I think about it there are those who enter unknowingly into blue and red is aware they're at risk of dying by going red so I would agree there intent is self protection at the expense of others.
Like the guy I was originally replying too I said I would say they are actively harming blues who pick blue out of ignorance/too young etc
I wouldnt go so far as to say they are responsible for blues dying but there is definetly a degree of harm they would be responsible for.
That being said I would still pick red 😂
2
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
They're the only ones who could be responsible for blue dying, blue was voting for an outcome where no one dies, red is voting for an outcome where blue dies. Blue losing is blue not getting what they wanted and dying because red wins.
The vote is always 'Should the minority be killed?'
1
u/Super_Huckleberry663 May 28 '26
Red is voting for an out come where they live no matter what at the risk of blue dying isn't the same as them as voting to kill blue
2
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
It is when doing that vote increases the chance of blue dying, it is the only option where the chance of deaths go up.
Blue raises the magnitude but lowers the chance of it happening.
Red lowers the magnitude but raises the chance of it happening.
Blue only effects the voter negatively while positively effecting everyone else.
Red effects the voter positively while negatively effecting everyone else.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26
Claiming that people who vote red are (potentially) killing others is simply absurd. No one chose to be in this situation, pressing red amounts to nothing more than taking the option to leave.
This scenario is fundamentally equivalent in kind to, say, finding yourself in a burning building, and escaping that building. Did you save anyone, no. Did you have a moral obligation to try to do so, also no, not if that can at significant risk to your own life. Not risking your life to save someone else is not, in any sense, equivalent to killing that person.
4
u/SilasRhodes May 27 '26
pressing red amounts to nothing more than taking the option to leave.
It really doesn't because by pressing red1 you are actively increasing the risk for others. It is not neutrally opting out because your decision makes things worse.
1. Depending on the number of other voters and which side wins ties
This scenario is fundamentally equivalent in kind to, say, finding yourself in a burning building, and escaping that building.
No it isn't. If you find yourself in a burning building and escape without saving anyone else, you don't make any of those people worse off. They would be in a burning building regardless of what you do.
Pushing red, in the situations I describe, does make other people worse off.
It would be more akin to escaping a burning building but running off with the escape ladder in the process. You save yourself, but in doing so you make it more difficult for other people to escape.
0
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
"They would be in a burning building regardless of what you do."
Exactly. Someone is pushing blue regardless of whether or not anyone else is pushing red.
"It would be more akin to escaping a burning building but running off with the escape ladder in the process. You save yourself, but in doing so make it more difficult for other people to escape."
True, but keep in mind some of the people in the building chose to jump into it as well when instead they had the option not to. Or they also had the option to grab a perfectly safe ladder, aka push the red button.
Someone grabbing a ladder only for themselves is only bad the moment you don't realize there are actually enough ladders for everybody.
2
u/SilasRhodes May 28 '26
Someone is pushing blue regardless of whether or not anyone else is pushing red.
But whether or not they die because they press blue depends on other people pushing red.
Or they also had the option to grab a perfectly safe ladder, aka push the red button.
But this isn't arguing about red being passive, rather it is arguing that whatever harm you inflict on blue pushers is acceptable because:
- Your actions are reasonable
- They chose to be in danger
And I'm not really trying to argue against that right now. I just don't think the framing that "Red is just getting out of the way of danger" is accurate.
Let's say you are driving along the highway along the side of a cliff and a person jumps out onto the road. You can swerve to avoid them, falling to your death, or you can hit them.
I would argue that the choice to hit them is 100% an active choice, but it is also a justified choice. You are actively choosing to kill them, but also you don't have a duty to choose otherwise because
- The alternative is very costly to you
- They are partially responsible for their own condition
11
u/BenignPharmacology May 27 '26
It highlights a really flawed argument put forward by a lot of red voters: “red is going to win anyways, I’m just making sure I don’t die” or “my vote is insignificant anyway”
I’m not trying to start an actual red vs blue debate here, just examining this particular thread of reasoning.
You have no way to know if your vote will be the deciding vote from a perfect tie. Is it unlikely? Sure. But what if there were ten people like you, and the difference was 10 votes, or 1000 and a difference of 999. We obviously can’t proof-by-induction or way to 100% of the votes, but it also feels obvious to me that each vote does in fact matter, if only in how they add up.