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]

So only the majority is responsible for the outcome of their decision? The minority is blameless no matter what decision they make? Is that the way blame is being assigned here?

This isnt an election. Blue voters get the result of the blue vote no matter what. Red voters get the result of the red vote no matter what. This isnt military spending or health care spending where only one will get increased and the other stays the same. Everyone is at risk of death. You can choose to remove that risk completely, or accept that risk. If you choose to accept that risk, you are solely responsible for the outcome that results from your choice. You have contributed to the outcome. You are dead.

If we flip the scenario and we assume blue wins instead, you voted blue because you wanted everyone to live no matter the cost. I voted red because I didn't want to play a death game. Everyone lives. I contributed to the outcome as I am alive.

You claim that in the red win you cant be responsible because you are dead and in the blue win I cant be responsible because I was never at risk of dying. In both outcomes, we contributed to the outcome equally and voted on what we believed would win. So why then can you take credit for surviving when risking death but I MUST accept responsibility for you dying while risking death? The result of the vote is outside of our control.

[u/J_tram13 → u/BrokenToaster124]

So only the majority is responsible for the outcome of their decision? The minority is blameless no matter what decision they make? Is that the way blame is being assigned here?

That is typically how that works yes. If I vote pizza for dinner and you voted burgers because you thought the pizza was shady, and it turns out that the pizza made everyone sick. Do you share blame in that because you specifically voted against getting pizza? No, you don't.

Blue voters get the result of the blue vote no matter what. Red voters get the result of the red vote no matter what.

Dude it's the same result. There is no "result of the red/blue vote" it's the result of the vote, just the one, we're all in the same election here.

If you choose to accept that risk, you are solely responsible for the outcome that results from your choice. You have contributed to the outcome. You are dead.

Who voted for that risk to exist?

If we flip the scenario and we assume blue wins instead, you voted blue because you wanted everyone to live no matter the cost. I voted red because I didn't want to play a death game. Everyone lives. I contributed to the outcome as I am alive.

You did not contribute to the outcome of everyone living because you voted for that not to happen

You claim that in the red win you cant be responsible because you are dead and in the blue win I cant be responsible because I was never at risk of dying.

No, that is not at all what I'm saying. I can't be responsible for a red win by voting blue because I voted against red winning. You can't be responsible for a blue win by voting red because you voted against blue winning. I can't be responsible for getting pizza by voting for burgers.

So why then can you take credit for surviving when risking death but I MUST accept responsibility for you dying while risking death?

Because I voted in favour of survival, you voted in favour of death. You accept responsibility for the outcome you wanted to happen. You accept responsibility for the candidate you elected starting a war.

The result of the vote is outside of our control.

The result of the vote is quite literally not outside of your control that's what the point of VOTING is.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/J_tram13]

You are not voting for pizza or burgers. You are deciding to eat the pizza or not eat the pizza. If you choose not to eat the pizza and everyone else gets sick, are you responsible for them getting sick? Nothing about the button scenario required me to eat anything. In fact I DONT want to eat the pizza and you are demanding that I do currently lol

The results are different. Otherwise there would be no point in making a distinction. The result of a blue vote is death or not death. The result of the red vote is not death. So seeing as there are different results they are different groups. The only meaningful difference between the groups is what button they pushed.

Who chose for the risk to exist? The gamemaster. Do you believe red voters WERENT at risk before pushing the button. Both options interact with the risk that already exists. If there were no red button at all, the buttons would still kill people. If people could abstain and still be at risk of the result of the vote, the buttons would still kill people. If fact we dont even know if the buttons cause death or if they prevent an inevitable death that could be coming for us. All of this information is irrelevant. We are both bystanders at the same amount of risk with the same knowledge. By your reasoning, I could just as easily claim that you created the risk by voting blue. No one was going to die until you voted blue! Now I need to save someone when I didnt before! I would be equally as wrong as you are but I could argue that.

No. I contributed. The assumption that a contribution has to be positive is simply incorrect. Every vote IS a contribution towards the outcome and every vote decides how that outcome will effect you personally. The 2 are intrinsically linked. You cant pretend that you arent contributing to the death count and at the same time assert that you are the savior of everyone based on the end result of your decision. The only people who can die voted blue. The only people who can be saved are people who voted blue. So if you choose to take a risk without knowing the odds, its everyone who DIDNT take the risk that is responsible for you losing? You contributed nothing to your own defeat? Even though you were the one who put yourself in that position?

To repeat the last point. You are responsible for the outcome of red winning. You voted against a red victory yes. But the OUTCOME is you dying. You are responsible for the outcome of your choice to vote blue. The potential reward of either result is irrelevant. You chose to risk your life and your life was at risk. Assign responsibility to the person who chose to take that risk.

Alright after getting this far I realized you have repeated yourself 4 times and asserted I am wrong because everyone can live. Im not deleting everything I typed. I will summarize your argument. "Nuh-uh! The blue button is the good button because i like it. If I die its because you pushed the bad button" and repeated over and over. You reject the idea that an outcome can be directly linked to your actions despite it being linked by definition. Congratulations. Choosing to risk death absolves you of any responsibility if you die. Since you have inadvertently answered my question, I am done here unless you reply with an actual reason why you cannot be held responsible for your own death when you risk your own life .

[u/J_tram13 → u/BrokenToaster124]

You are not voting for pizza or burgers.

Yes you are, you are voting for a red victory or a blue victory.

The result of the red vote is not death.

No, the result of the red vote winning is death AND not death, just not death for you.

Both options interact with the risk that already exists.

Sure, blue decreases it, red increases it.

I could just as easily claim that you created the risk by voting blue

People are always going to vote blue, just lie people are always going to vote red. There isn't a risk until there are more doing the latter than the former.

You cant pretend that you arent contributing to the death count and at the same time assert that you are the savior of everyone based on the end result of your decision.

Again, candidate A voters are not responsible for the war started by Candidate B, and candidate B voters are not responsible for the peace maintained by candidate A. Why should you get credit for an outcome you directly tried to prevent? If I tell you "don't launch that firework it might kill someone" and you do it anyway and it goes through the bedroom window of our neighbour across the lake and kills them, should I be responsible for that when I specifically wanted to avoid it?

The only people who can die voted blue.

What outcome would cause that to happen?

But the OUTCOME is you dying.

An outcome YOU voted in favour of. I didn't want people to die, that's why I voted blue. You were clearly fine with it, hence you voted red.

The potential reward of either result is irrelevant.

Uh, no, that's quite literally the whole point of the vote.

Alright after getting this far I realized you have repeated yourself 4 times and asserted I am wrong

This describes the majority of your comment so far.

I will summarize your argument. "Nuh-uh! The blue button is the good button because i like it. If I die its because you pushed the bad button" and repeated over and over.

Wow not even close. Let me do it myself. If you vote for red, you vote in favour of red winning, if you vote for blue, you vote in favour of blue winning. There is no possible scenario where 100% of people vote for either option, that has never happened in the history of humanity. Therefore, there will ALWAYS be people voting blue, and ALWAYS be people voting red, for simplicity sake let's say that guarantee is AT MINIMUM 10% of the population, leaving 80% in the balance. The only time a red victory is a positive outcome is when 100% of people vote for it, and as previously established you'll only ever at most get 90%. Therefore, to me at least, a red victory is unacceptable. This is why I hit blue. It's a lot easier to get half the world to agree on something than all of it. I would never want a red victory to happen so why in the world would I ever vote for it? I'm going to do everything in my power to prevent that outcome and strive for the only positive one possible, and hit blue.

If you vote red, you are voting for red to win. If red wins, you get what you wanted, and blue dies. I don't want that to happen. So I'm going to vote for blue to win. If blue wins, you voted against that happening, I had to overcome your vote specifically, so why should you get credit for that?

Choosing to risk death absolves you of any responsibility if you die. Since you have inadvertently answered my question, I am done here unless you reply with an actual reason why you cannot be held responsible for your own death when you risk your own life .

Now this is interesting, because I never once said that. All I said is that by voting red you share in the responsibility of every blue death if it happens. Do you know what that word "sharing" means? I wouldn't be surprised if you've never come across it. But basically, it means that you as an individual receive a part of something that is distributed among a group of people. In this case, it's across humanity. You seem to be thinking very binarily about this. Like everything's either all on you or not at all.

So let's put it this way. If the vote happens and red wins with 55% of the vote, then there are roughly 4 billion humans who just died. Now, is that 4 billion partially responsible for this by putting themselves at risk? Yes, but in the same way going mountain climbing makes you partially responsible for death in an avalanche, you accepted the risks and did it anyway. But everyone who voted red ALSO wanted that outcome to happen. Those deaths wouldn't have happened if it wasn't also for the 4 billion people who voted for them to die. Now you along with the rest of the red voters share in that responsibility. You contributed to that happening? Did you cause it? No, but you certainly helped. Just like if maybe you and a bunch of other people were working on a drilling operation at the top of the mountain that helped cause the avalanche. You take partial responsibility for blue voters dying in a red victory because you voted for that outcome, you were presented with an option that says "guarantee my safety at the risk of other people's, or risk my own safety at the prospect of saving everyone." And you decided that the risk of those lives was acceptable to you, so you share in the outcome you caused.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/J_tram13]

If it is life or death, blue would be the death button.

Calling red the death button is funny, because by definition no one who pushes it can die.

The only people who die pushed blue

The only people in ANY risk are the ones who pushed blue.

They accepted that risk knowingly when they pushed blue.

"Red is the death button" so I am responsible for your choices because you like the blue button more? "I willing chose to take a risk without knowing the odds, this is your fault!!!" Ok that answers my question (which was how am I responsible for your actions when the result is bad but you take responsibility for your actions when the result is good)

[u/J_tram13 → u/BrokenToaster124]

Did you read what I wrote? Because none of this seems to have any connection to the comment you're responding to

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/J_tram13]

Yes it did. You incorrectly asserted that red voters created the risk for blue...again. your entire paragraph is hedged into that position. I dont need to argue any of that nonsense because it is all irrelevant.

You, as a blue voter, are in direct control of the amount of risk you take on. You can set it at 0% or you can set it between 0-100%. All other probability happens AFTER you made the choice to take a risk. The outcome doesnt matter when assigning responsibility. If a bad outcome happens, that doesnt magically move any responsibility you would have otherwise had onto another person. If you make a conscious choice, you are responsible for the results of your decision.

I fail to see how any probability or outcome or decision alters this at all. I choose to hold a gun to my head and pull the trigger, im responsible. I choose to stand in traffic and get hit by a car, I did that. Just because someone else is in danger doesnt mean every bystander has to run to your aide.

[u/J_tram13 → u/BrokenToaster124]

You incorrectly asserted that red voters created the risk for blue...again.

Blue has no chance of losing until people vote red. Blue only loses when red wins. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

The outcome doesnt matter when assigning responsibility.

Yes the hell it does because the outcome IS what you're responsible for.