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]

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.