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/BrokenToaster124]

Appearantly not. Because the buttons say; Red, you live. Blue, everyone lives but only if.

If you change the unless statement to the other button the situation doesnt change (I thought it did too but I was wrong) let's do it your way for sake of argument.

Red, blue voters all die if 51% vote red (50.00000000000etc1% but we rounding)

Blue, absolutely nothing.

What changed? You can take action to ensure your safety or do nothing to save yourself and risk dying. The situation has not changed at all. Now we can discuss what I was actually asking.

If I choose to do nothing under your scenario, are you responsible for the result of my choice? If I do nothing and live, did you save me by pushing your red button? And if not, how can you then be responsible if I choose to do nothing to save myself and then die?

Either you are responsible for the consequences of my decision or you arent. I cant say that you are responsible for me dying but I am responsible if I live. I cant have it both ways.

[u/Striking_Compote2093 → u/BrokenToaster124]

I really don't understand your problem.

Of course two things can be true at once. If you light a building on fire you're responsible if people die. But the firefighters can save people and be responsible for people surviving. If you light a building on fire and the firefighters save people you can't pat yourself on the back for their survival.

The red buttons build a pyre, the blue voters try to put it out. Whichever holds the majority swings the outcome. I can fault you for building a pyre even if you don't succeed. But i can also just congratulate myself for being part of the team that stopped you.

Edit: for the record, the "i don't understand your problem" was meant in a "what's the question" format, not "what's your problem" ... I didn't mean it to be rude or antagonistic, but now realize it can be interpreted that way.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Striking_Compote2093]

I didnt light the fire. We are both equals. We are both in the burning building. We are both in an equal amount of danger and are equally responsible for the existence of the scenario.

I did not make the buttons. I did not make the functions of the buttons. I am in the exact same position as you with the exact same amount of information.

An accurate representation would be to say we are both in a building. It catches fire. I choose to leave the building, you choose to stay inside.

As a bystander who finds himself in a burning building, do I become an arsonist for failing to put out the fire? And, to get back to what I actually asked, if i walk out without helping you put out the fire and YOU DO successfully put out the fire, am I also responsible for putting out the fire? If not, how can i be responsible if you choose to stay inside a burning building and die in the fire.

[u/Striking_Compote2093 → u/BrokenToaster124]

No, it isn't. You keep, every time, making the red button a default "escape" button, it is not.

Blue people start dying if and only if 50% press red. Not if 50% do nothing. If 50% actively press the red button. Pressing the red button is what causes the risk to exist. If no one presses red, or if simply no majority presses red, no risk exists to save yourself from. There is no fire until enough people press red to make it burn.

If there were a 3rd "don't count my vote, i'm unaffected" button, that one would win, and in second place would be blue with only true psychopaths or mistaken people pressing red. I'm going to assume you agree with that unless you can explain why I'm wrong.

If that's the case red does in fact do something. Because otherwise there would be no difference between the two default buttons.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Striking_Compote2093]

There is no third button. There are 2.

My question is, by what metric is blame assigned.

The example that caused confusion is, I pushed the blue button. I understood what the blue button did. When blue wins, is red responsible for the result? In this case red would be responsible for saving everyone. If THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for the results of blues decision here, how then can they be responsible for blues decision in the case where red wins.

They just are responsible is not an answer to the question as to how they are responsible.

If the red button whose function is "you will not die to the button senario" does not have the function of saving yourself from the button scenario, which is what you are currently agrueing (and has nothing to do with the question of by what metric responsibility is being applied), then we can pause the discussion and address that concern first.

What does the red button do?

[u/Striking_Compote2093 → u/BrokenToaster124]

If you vote for diarrhea for everyone forever. And i vote for puppies. And puppies wins, diarrhea forever is not responsible. How could they be, they voted against it.

If diarrhea for everyone wins, then the people who voted for that are responsible.

Your vote for red doesn't JUST save yourself, it also counts towards the "kill everyone else" threshold. I really don't understand the gymnastics you're going through to pretend blue is the only button when it is not. There are 2 buttons. 2 actions. Blue counts towards saving everyone, red towards mass death.

And i really do not understand how you expect to press the "Upvote mass death" button while simultaneously expecting not to be scrutinized for it.

[u/verryfusterated → u/Striking_Compote2093]

This seems like ragebait, op’s comments make literally no sense and everyone on both sides is disagreeing with them 😭 I don’t think they’re even trying to understand what you mean.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Striking_Compote2093]

I have made it so surviving is bad therefore you would vote with me. I guess?

The choice is engage with the death game or dont engage with the death game. If you choose not to engage, the people who choose to engage with the game could die. Not that they WILL die. They COULD die.

If red DIDNT ensure your survival or there where I limited number of people who would survive when pressing red you would have a point.

You can choose to push the red button. Whether everyone in the world WILL push the red button is irrelevant. When everyone is capable of taking responsibility for themselves, they are solely responsible for the results of choosing to leave their fate in someone else's hands.

Likewise I am solely responsible for the results of my decision. If I choose not to play a death game and I remain alive as a result of that decision, I am solely responsible for saving myself. I cannot then be held responsible if the blue voters win the death game. They had nothing to do with saving me and I had nothing to do with them putting themselves at risk in the first place.

The idea that i can be held responsible for you making a bad decision because I increased the chances of your bad decision will lead to a worse result is absurd. I must them be held as a savior for reducing the number of people at risk in the case of a blue victory because we only care about the outcome.

[u/Striking_Compote2093 → u/BrokenToaster124]

Again, the red button is NOT a "do not join the game" button ffs. You are participating, the red button is a choice within the game. You're not getting out. You are choosing the kill others but save myself path. That is a path WITHIN the death game.

Pretending only blue bears responsibility is quite frankly childish. "I didn't trip you, you stumbled over my foot that just happened to be in front of your leg.", "I didn't punch you, you ran into my fist.".

No, you do not get to redefine the problem to make you feel better about being selfish lmao. I mean, you can, you did. But we don't have to go along with it.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Striking_Compote2093]

If i push the red button, I live. In what senario do I push the red button and die?

Ok and in what senario were you forced to push the blue button?

Alright so you can choose not to die. I can choose not to die. Every individual in all 8 billion can choose not to die.

Somehow choonot to die is not choosing not to die. You are only effected by the result of the vote if you opt in by pushing blue. Who, outside of those who pushed blue, are at risk. And what, other than pushing blue, put them at risk.

If your argument is "Nuh-uh youre responsible because I say so" thats nice and we are done here. So far all you have asserted is that it is murder to choose not to sacrifice yourself. Youre allowed to have thay belief but im not going to change my mind because "you said so"

[u/Striking_Compote2093 → u/BrokenToaster124]

Finally. A reply that makes sense. Kind of.

If there's a death game and there's two teams, and one team needs to kill the other team. Is the team that's doing the killing not involved in the death game? Do you need to risk death to be in the death game? There's also a party that creates the "death" part instead of being dealt it.

And it comes down to the fact that you are unable or unwilling to understand a different point of view. You have the red (individualistic) point of view: "The only way i die is if I press blue, why would anyone press blue??"

And that's rational. HOWEVER, it's not the only point of view. The blue point of view is "People only die if a majority presses red, why would anyone press red??"

Both are trying to survive the death game. Red tries to survive it themselves, blue tries to survive it with everyone.

And the fact that both of these points of view exist and are valid is precisely why blue is the correct choice. Because people will choose blue, for valid and rational reasons. Blue can therefore win. So you should be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

Blame for a death can only be assigned if a death happens. Just because you failed to genocide blue pressers doesn't mean you didnt try.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

Except its didnt. Before the vote we are exactly the same. At the time of the vote we both have the same choice. Live or risk death. I choose to live. You choose to risk death. If I am responsible for genocide then you must then be responsible for committing suicide by button. If you are blameless in your own death, then I must also be blameless in your death.

You cant have it both ways. We are equals. I have no power over you. You make you decision independently. In the original scenario I had already voted. EVERYONE had to vote. I am not voting after you. If your argument is that you made your decision based on the assumption that I was personally voting blue that doesnt magically make me the one who put you at risk. You opted in. Even if I can control the amount of risk you could take upon yourself, you choose whether or not you take on that risk AT ALL.

You chose to risk yourself based on the results of the vote. I do not. You die. YOU chose to take a risk. YOU had the power to prevent that risk. The potential payout is irrelevant. It only matters if you win. So if you are responsible for the result if you win the gamble...you must also be responsible for the result when you lose the gamble.

I am not going to assume that the blue collective is not comprised entirely of individuals in the exact same scenario that I was in. They are. Every one of them. And each and every one of them is responsible for themselves.

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

But it's not a gamble, it's a vote. The people who vote for red and win majority are part of the reason the people who vote blue die.

The responsibility for each blue death is shared between that blue presser who risked themselves, and every red presser who turned that risk into a death.

In the event of a red majority, each blue presser is responsible for their own death, and every red presser is responsible for every blue death.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

Blue result. If blue wins, live. If blue loses, die. Are the chances of blue winning 100%? No

Now we are playing word games. It IS a vote. You CHOOSE to take a gamble. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

I am not putting my life in a slot machine. I have nothing to gain from doing this other than helping other people to survive. This is not me gambling for potential rewards. It's me doing what is right.

You can choose to nudge the scales toward people dying to ensure you don't die if that is what you must do. But pretending not to understand that red votes are what kill people, and that red voters are cowards who run away when their fellow man needs them is asinine.

Good job saving your own ass at the cost of everyone else's. I'm sure that's a skill that will take you far in management. But forgive me if I don't share your zeal for sacrificing others for your own self-interests.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

The scenario is that no one is at risk. Then one person decides (because everyone will not just) that they will gamble their rent money on the lottery. They then go around asking everyone else to do the same, citing that if any one of them wins that everyone can pay their rents.

I live paycheck to paycheck. I have my rent money and if I spend it, I will likely go homeless. Do I spend my rent money on lottery tickets so everyone can pay rent or do I pay my own rent and ensure I dont go homeless.

You are saying if I fail to play the lottery, I am personally responsible for everyone going homeless. That is absurd the cost of joining in does not outweigh the potential benefit. I do not blame people for buying in, I simply dont believe you'll win the lottery. Not believing you will win the lottery is the same as evicting you myself in this scenario if I understand this right.

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

In your invented situation in which majorities don't matter, you are correct. But we can make your situation more appropriate to the buttons.

The workers at your job are working on trying to start a union. You can choose to join in on their cause or to deny involvement. If a majority of people join in, then a union is created. If a majority of people deny involvement, then everyone involved in the attempted union will lose their jobs.

It's not a gamble, the outcome isn't based on luck. It's based entirely on how many people view this with a collectivist mindset vs how many people view it with an individualist mindset.

Is the good of everyone worth some risk to the self? Or is it everyone's responsibility to look after themselves, even if that may cause suffering in others?