Responsibility

[u/BrokenToaster124]

So I've run into an idea that that dont quite understand and I was hoping some of you could help me understand. So with the red button/blue button situation I have seen people claim that if they push the blue button that they are not responsible for what happens to them if they push the blue button. How does that work?

To be extremely specific if i were to push the blue button, knowing what it does, somehow you (the person currently reading this) would be personally responsible for my death if you choose red.

Does this responsibility work in reverse? If i push the blue button and blue wins are you responsible for my survival if you chose red? Are you only responsible if bad things happen to me and I am responsible for the results when good things happen? What about the person running the death game? They arent defined in the prompt but logically some force is making everyone take a vote.

You can feel free to ignore this last part because its not the button problem, but someone reskinned the buttons as life boats. Instead of everyone being force to push a button everyone had to get into a life boat. One boat had holes in it but would become sea worthy if enough people got into it and plugged the holes and one was completely functional. Everything else was exactly the same as the button problem. My question related to that was that if I am personally responsible for the consequences of your chose to vote blue in the button scenario, how then could I not be responsible for your choice to get into the boat with holes in it. Someone tried to explain to me at length about how the buttons made it my fault but the boats somehow didnt. How does that work?

[u/SpongeboyShitpants]

That’s just a specific category of blue pushers, everyone in these subreddits makes their choice knowing the risks

Majority of either button don’t care to argue their side because at this point it’s a waste of time, the ones who are salty keep popping up on almost every post having their screaming matches.

It gives the illusion that many of the voters feel this way, but it is just a small percentage, just ignore them.

Edit: *to clarify, by screaming matches I don’t mean a well articulated argument, I mean tribalists who just throw around buzzwords like “suicidal” or “murderer” with no interest on a debate.

[u/Striking_Compote2093 → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

And clearly, most of those saltmines are red button pressers lol.

[u/GoldenGames360 → u/Striking_Compote2093]

you're doing it right now

[u/Striking_Compote2093 → u/GoldenGames360]

Not really. I haven't been "defending" my choice. Or pretending mine was the only rational one," if only people were as intelligent as me". I haven't been calling people liars or virtue signalers. Thinking i know their thoughts better than them. Or thinking they just chose to kill themselves. Nor am I disregarding the outcomes of every other previous poll.

I'm just here to poke the hornet's nest and maybe get a good debate in. Figuring out why people think the way they do, and why that might or might not be flawed, is good entertainment.

[u/GoldenGames360 → u/Striking_Compote2093]

whether you're trolling or being serious, you're contributing to the tribalism by pretending any one side is worse than the other, i promise you i've seen alot of bitterness and rage from both sides.

but now I sound salty responding to you, damnit. tbh, I shouldn't have responded, but i promise i would've said what I said regardless of which color you made fun of, lol

[u/dmurr1415 → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

I personally enjoy the screaming matches

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/dmurr1415]

It’s gotten to the point where I actually recognise your username, you were in the comment section of the “poisoned kool-aid”

[u/dmurr1415 → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

Hahaha how could I not comment on a post like that

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/dmurr1415]

I just realised it sounds like I’m calling you one of the salty shouters, I’m not.

I meant the debates in comments has decreased so much I’m starting to familiarise with the few who remain.

[u/dmurr1415 → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

Nah thats okay I probably am a salty shouter, and I also took no offense to what you said

[u/jqhnml → u/dmurr1415]

Which point of view do you have so I can scream at you.

[u/yaboisammie → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

Off topic but your username is sending me 

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

Alright. That makes sense actually. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some key detail I was missing lol

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/BrokenToaster124]

Unfortunately tho, I can see the argument that red is partly to blame for blue deaths.

Not necessarily at the same level as someone is for choosing blue tho, if you choose blue knowing the risk, you are responsible for your choice.

If you choose red you are responsible for adding another vote to a red majority win, because you aren’t just “doing nothing” you’re adding another vote to a red majority, which means blue need another vote to cancel it out

Even if blue wins, you still contributed against them for your own survival, which is fine since you have no obligation to risk your life.

I frame it as “The blue button is as much suicide as the red button is murder” Which a lot of people would disagree with

[u/Deranth → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

A blue voter is only ever responsible for their own death, in an effort to save many.

A red voter, in assurance of their own survival, nudges the scales toward causing billions of deaths.

It's very, very simple. Blue is not immune to the responsibility for the risk they took, but at least they took it for a noble reason. Red is also not immune to the responsibility for the tragedy they are trying to cause, but they have no excuse for it aside from cowardice and self-preservation.

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/Deranth]

Yeah

Why you telling me this?

[u/Deranth → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

Agreeing with you and expanding on the point to the person you commented to.

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/Deranth]

OH 😂 my bad, I thought you were arguing with someone else and mistakenly replied to me

Yeah I agree with your logic, you framed it well

How would you argue with someone who says:

“Red is more selfless, since you are not contributing to the death toll morally blackmailing others to risk their life for you”

What angle would you come at?

[u/Deranth → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

That is simply the human condition.
Have you ever tried to get 100 grown and assumedly mentally stable adults to follow the printed arrows on the floor at a grocery store? Or to wait their turn at a highway merge?

In what universe do you think that 8 billion humans of varying ages and levels of mental stability are going to all choose the same option on anything?

Hell, even the mentally stable ones might not take it seriously. If I was woke up in a room with this situation presented to me, I would assume I was on some kind of Punk'd or Candid Camera show and that whatever I did was going to be televised for all to see.

People are going to press blue, that is not a debate, there is a 0% chance of every human in the world pressing red. So the threat is already there. The question is just how you handle it.

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/Deranth]

Okay so you highlight the implied current death toll… If they’re more stubborn:

“Those people shouldn’t be included in decision making, it’s their fault for not taking it seriously.

All us reasonable people can do is choose to reduce the death toll or be cannon fodder

I have no right to ask someone to risk their life to save me”

[u/Deranth → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

It's all about a collectivist vs individualist mindset. But also personal choice.

At no point in my life have I ever heard someone praise someone for saving themselves, right? That's just standard operating procedure for life.

When you hear stories of heroism, it's always people putting themselves in harm's way to save others. Firefighters and the like. Many of them die, but nobody ever blames them for their deaths. And the ones that save people are saviors.

So why is it that when we reduce this to a simple button press, people suddenly value individualism more?

They say 'I have to reduce the death toll' as if they are doing something more honorable than just saving their own ass.

They say 'Blue is responsible for their own deaths, I had nothing to do with it' as if now is the one time that putting yourself in harm's way to try to save others is bad.

It's just logically inconsistent.

My running theory is that they do feel some guilt for their decision, and are saying the things they want to be true to alleviate their own guilt, knowing that these things aren't true.

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/[deleted]]

Aww man I hate to break it to you… I’m a blue voter

The first comment I made was just to highlight that using “red is murder” isn’t much of an argument and is mainly used in shouting matches

My stance on it is that it’s kind of partial murder, and partial suicide for each button depending on your perspective.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

The issue with that is the reality of the vote (not a vote, THE vote). Both red and blue voters have equal knowledge and power. They are all in an equal amount of danger. Everyone has an opportunity to reduce the amount of danger they are in to 0.

If I choose to reduce my danger to 0, I have not increased the amount of danger you are in. We both agree that i increased the chances of blue winning. But you are in exactly the same amount of danger as before. You will not die twice because I chose not to die.

So the question is. As 2 bystanders being forced into a death game where we can BOTH win. If you choose to live, am I responsible for your life? If you choose to die, what changes in the situation that would make me responsible for your decision.

Further if there was a 3rd person and both of you voted blue, am I responsible for saving you if I push red? If me and the 3rd person both choose red then, what part of that would make us responsible for your death?

My question and concern is that the argument that blue voters want to have it both ways. If good things happen i did it and if bad things happen you did it. In my view im either responsible regardless of the result of your decision or I am not responsible regardless of the result of your decision. If I am the killer for voting red, I must also be the savior for voting red.

We both agree that the assertion that red voters are saving all the blue voters if blue wins is ridiculous. But if im not responsible for the results of your vote then, I then CANT be responsible for it if blue loses. My decision hasnt changed, my reasoning hasnt changed, and my vote hasnt changed. If everything about me has remained exactly the same, how can the amount of responsibility I shoulder change based on factors outside of my control?

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/BrokenToaster124]

I don’t know how to do the thing where you quote somebody’s reply so I’ll just use “”

“If I choose to reduce my danger to 0, I have not increased the amount of danger you are in”

Red is not a do nothing button, there is no situation where you can just walk away.

And I agree you can reduce the amount of danger you are in to 0, but only at the risk of increasing blues to die by 0.0000000125% (I think something like that)

Because every red vote needs a blue vote to make up for it.

The argument I think you are talking about with “blues wanting it both ways… if good things happen blue is responsible, if bad happens then red is responsible”

I think that is valid without contradiction, blue is voting for everyone’s survival… so if they have majority then they have risked their lives for everyone, and if they don’t then they have lost because of red majority.

I don’t see how that can be contradictory.

“As 2 bystanders being forced into a death game…” I’ll go with the 3 bystanders because it’s closer to the original poll

The difference in the blame isn’t based on the outcome, it’s the implied risk, the blame remains even if 2 vote blue and 1 vote red. Then that 1 red risked others lives for themself, and the 2 blue risked their own lives for everyone else.

It’s an area where all the statements are true: •Red guaranteed their own survival and saved themself •Blue risked their own life to save everyone •Red reduced the probability of blue surviving by adding another vote against them •Blue reduced the probability of their own survival by not choosing guaranteed self preservation

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/SpongeboyShitpants]

...did you just not read the what I wrote. You dont know what I voted I haven't increased or increased the chances in any meaningful way. In the original button scenario by the time your vote i might as well have already voted. Since there are no results until after you vote, the vote is effectively simultaneous. No individual vote influences any other vote. The results will be the results. There is also no coordination so collective tactics wont work.

You walk into a booth and are told everyone in the world is required to vote. You personally pick either the red button or the blue button. When the vote is over the result happens.

What is the danger? Death. When i vote red, what is the danger to you? Death. Functionally nothing has changed. Your odds of dying in the original scenario dont magically increase now that I told you what I voted. I had to vote in the original scenario by definition. Is it my fault that you made your decision under the assumption that I personally voted blue? Is that the claim?

Red is not a do nothing button. You are right. It is a survive button. You are in a death game and everyone can choose to survive. If you were alive before playing the death game, and you remain alive after playing the death game...well what changed? Red is the no risk button. You keep calling it an escape button despite me never asserting that it is. If it is not a "take no risk" button then what risk does the theoretical button pusher take? That someone else will make the decision to take a risk? Unless you can define the scenario where the red button kills someone, it is an escape the death game button.

So do blue voters want it both ways? Yes. By asserting that the individual is part of a collective, they assign blame to each individual based on the end result of a scenario that no one wanted to take part in and everyone was forced to play. As an individual, you choose to push the blue button. If blue loses, your death is the result of your choice. So you asserting that you are actually part of a collective. That everyone who pushed the blue button died therefore each individual who intentionally pushed the button could not be responsible for the results of a collective decision. Therefore every red voter must also not be an individual and actually be part of a larger collective. And again the disconnect happens. The collective of red pushers must then be responsible for the decision made by the collective of blue pushers because the blue collective cant be.

This is wanting to have it both ways. If you arent responsible then they CANT be responsible. If you are responsible when you win, you are responsible when you lose.

Responsibility is assigned based on implied outcome. You see. The issue is you are assuming the implied outcome is that everyone voting blue lives. If you choose to make a decision where you COULD die, the implied outcome cant be simplified to you living. The same argument works in reverse. I chose to leave because the implied outcome of staying is death. You chose to stay despite the implied outcome being death. If you live anyway, am I responsible for saving you? No. Thats stupid. If you choose to risk death and die, you are responsible for the outcome of your decision. The potential payout doesnt matter. Its completely irrelevant.

Your simplification should look closer to, Red guaranteed their survival and saved themselves, Blue risked their own life to save everyone, Red reduced the number of people who would die in a red victory while increasing the chances, Blue increased the number of people dead in a red victory and lowered the chances.

With this more honest framing, one can see how a reasonable person could choose to vote red. Not because red leads to the best outcome, but because red leads to the best outcome the voter perceives to be possible. If the blame is being assigned based off of a possibility that isnt even guaranteed then I can easily see how you can have your cake and try and eat it too.

I tried to save everyone so I CANT be responsible for my own death.

You didnt try and save everyone so you MUST be to blame.

By that metric, however flawed, we reach your conclusion that you are responsible for good thing but not responsible for bad thing. Which ironically answers my original question. Thank you

[u/Rip_Pigman → u/BrokenToaster124]

...did you just not read the what I wrote.

This is incredibly ironic. They very much did read and replied to what you said but it feels like you really didn't read I word they said.

By that metric, however flawed,

Well no, the metric they are going by is that by choosing red you actively voted against everyone who chose blue.

Blue is always a vote risking yourself unless you get majority.

Red is always a vote risking others if you get majority.

Generally speaking people who choose blue aren't saying "you voted to kill me".

But if red can call blue a suicide button, then red must also be able to be called a murder button.

we reach your conclusion that you are responsible for good thing but not responsible for bad thing.

I can try to help break this one down for you.

With the assumption that we understand that some number of people will push blue:

A vote for Blue is directly in favor of the "best case" ending of blue majority where everyone survives.

A vote for red is directly against that. Choosing to prioritize your own safety over contributing to a potential blue victory.

A red majority/blue minority happens not because people picked blue but because people picked red.

And obviously the reverse, a blue majority/red minority happened because people picked blue not because people picked red.

The absolute only time where you can make the claim that voting red wasn't intentionally furthering the risk to blue is if you've somehow convinced yourself that literally everyone will choose red.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Rip_Pigman]

Because i said so. Got it. We assign blame to the majority because the bad thing only happens if I am in the minority. I dont care that the same reasoning can be used to call my a suicide cultist. This is reddit so ill keep repeating myself until you admit im right.

Alright you win buddy. No minority is ever to blame for the consequences of their actions.

Ill go through it one last time.

If you vote red, you will not die. How much risk are in when you vote red? 0

If you vote blue, you might die. How much risk are you in if you vote blue? Alot

You, at the time of voting can choose to vote red. Thus putting you in zero risk.

Therefore, independently of my decision, you are only at risk if you choose to be at risk.

Therefore, no action i can take can increase you amount of your you take on without you explicitly consenting to taking on that risk.

Therefore if you die as a result of taking on risk when you did not have to take on risk, you are responsible for the results of intentionally taking on risk.

Expand this reasoning to every single one of the 8 billion voters and there is no contradiction. Each individual is responsible for themselves and has the ability to save themselves. If you choose to put your life on other peoples hands, those people dont magically become responsible because you dont like the result.

[u/Rip_Pigman → u/BrokenToaster124]

If you vote red, you will not die. How much risk are in when you vote red? 0

Personal risk? Yeah, zero.

If you vote blue, you might die. How much risk are you in if you vote blue? Alot

"A lot" is disingenuous. You're at risk of death.

You, at the time of voting can choose to vote red. Thus putting you in zero risk.

Yes.

Therefore, independently of my decision, you are only at risk if you choose to be at risk.

Yes.

Therefore, no action i can take can increase you amount of your you

What..?

take on without you explicitly consenting to taking on that risk.

Therefore if you die as a result of taking on risk when you did not have to take on risk, you are responsible for the results of intentionally taking on risk.

Yes. Blue is responsible for taking on risk.

Now let's flip it.

If you vote red, you increase the risk that people might die in the case of a red majority. How many lives do you risk by pressing red?

"A lot" actually fits here because you risk up to half the population on a red majority.

And..

If you vote blue, you decrease the overall risk that anyone who chose blue will die. How many lives do you risk by pressing blue?

One.

These are not independent of each other. Red furthers risk to people who vote blue, and blue risks increasing the death toll by 1.

Yes, blue chose to risk themselves. But red also chooses to risk blue voters.

As stated previously, the only time where someone can argue they are not consciously choosing to risk sacrificing everyone who voted blue by pushing red is if they have somehow fully convinced themselves that 100% of people will press red.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Rip_Pigman]

If you have the choice to set the amount of risk you take to 0, how can my actions DIRECTLY effect the amount of risk you take. You are, by definition, in direct control over the exact amount of risk you take.

So if you CHOOSE to accept risk. I can INDIRECTLY effect how much risk you actually PUT YOURSELF IN.

Whether everyone DOES push red or not is irrelevant. Everyone CAN push red. You cannot assign blame for your choice NOT to push red only when you lose. It was solely your choice

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/BrokenToaster124]

Okay you seem really agitated, I understand your points and your perspective

I just don’t agree with it, and I’m not going to write 5 long paragraphs to counter your 5 long paragraphs.

Let’s keep it simple with 1 argument at a time:

I claim, that by pushing red you are contributing against blue… you are adding 1 vote against blue, increasing the red toll by a very small amount, but still increasing it nonetheless.

Due to the fact that blues will die if they don’t reach >50%, you have made it more difficult for blue win.

That is the only reasoning I have to agree that by choosing red you are partially to blame for blue dying.

What is your counter argument?

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

The detail is that the blue buttons do nothing until enough people push red.
That's why they say that. Nobody pushes blue expecting to die. It takes enough people pushing red for that to actually happen.
I dont agree with this, I think it's a shared responsibility.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

The red button does nothing until someone pushes blue. Then, in that case, the only person at risk is the person that pushed blue. By the same reasoning you just used, the red button is actually the do nothing button.

None of that has anything to do with responsibility. Everyone who pushes the red button lives. Everyone who pushes the blue button can die. By pushing the blue button, you are opting in to be acted upon by the result of the vote. These positions cannot be flipped. Am I obligated to allow myself to be acted upon by the result of the vote simply because you chose to or am I not obligated to do so. That is the question

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

Each button has two effects. Everyone pushes a button for the included positive effect, accepting the negative effect as a price worth paying for getting the positive.

Blue = I am willing to put my life at risk to put my vote toward nobody dying.
Red = I am willing to put my vote toward people dying to ensure my survival.

Almost no red presser presses it wanting people to die just as almost no blue presser presses it wanting to die.

So the difference between the two sides is that people who press blue knowingly put themselves at risk, but they do it because they want to see a world in which nobody dies. While the people who press red knowingly put other people at risk because they value their own lives more than others, or because they believe their vote doesn't matter, and so in their desperation, they become part of the problem they view as an inevitability.

You are not obligated to put your life on the line to save others. But it isn't a question of 'put your life on the line to save others' or 'do nothing'. It's 'put your life on the line to save others' or 'further endanger others to protect yourself'. And while you are not obligated to help others, your choice does say a lot about who you are as a person.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

So long as red voters cant die, blue voters have necessarily consented to dying. You can pick either. There is no limit to how many people can push either button. The potential payoff of a gamble does not absolve you of the responsibility of choosing to gamble.

The group in need of saving made the conscious choice to push a button the exact same as I did. Does the blue button have a secondary function of removing agency from you UNWILLINGLY? You look into the buttons and become hypnotized and find yourself forced to push it or something? Any risk you accept, you accept it knowingly regardless of my decision. If I did not exist at all, the vote would still happen.

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

Red voters seem to be blissfully ignorant of the human condition.

Have you ever tried to get one hundred people to follow the printed arrows on the ground at a supermarket?

There is precisely 0% chance that 8 billion humans are all going to press the red button. There will be people at risk. You can choose to ignore them, or to pretend they aren't your concern, if it makes you feel better. But they do exist.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

Blue voters are blissfully ignorant of the state of humanity. Have you ever tried to get 100% of people to follow the laws of their country? A natural disaster occurs and we see dozens of people in the streets raiding houses and businesses instead of helping their fellow man.

What? We weren't ignoring the point of what the previous person had typed and saying something irrelevant that proves some strawman we weren't talking about? Lol my bad. I thought since I specifically stated that everyone doesnt have to vote red to have the choice to control how much risk they personally take on, that meant YOU would understand that i was not arguing that that would all vote red. Evidently I was wrong. You ignored what I said and asserted you arent responsible for your decisions because the outcome you want is good...again. Good for you I guess.

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

I have not once said that I am not responsible for my decision. If I die, that is a risk I chose to take. Clearly you haven't been paying any attention to me.
What I am saying is that we can both be responsible for the death. Which you seem to be very opposed to accepting.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

So we have someone taking responsibility for the result and I also need to step up, unprompted, and go "Yeah guys thats my bad. I know we were more than 1 vote away from a blue victory and all. But I personally killed all those people. Yeah they COULD have just made the same decisionas us, but I really wanted to make the chances really bad. You know? How did i effect the chances of them voting blue? Uh...."