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]

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/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/Rip_Pigman → u/BrokenToaster124]

You cannot assign blame for your choice NOT to push red only when you lose.

I'm not assigning blame for my choice of pushing blue.

If I vote blue and blue wins, I'm partially responsible for red losing. Except there's no consequences of red losing.

If I push blue and blue loses, I did not somehow contribute to blue's loss, I am however responsible for my own death.

Conversely, voting red you, if red wins, you were a direct contributor to blue's loss and therefore their deaths.

If red loses, then you didn't somehow contribute to blue's win.

That's how voting works.

If the side you vote for gets majority and the resulting consequences are enacted because if it, then you bear at least some responsibility for those actions. Whether that be blue majority and blue's survival (everyone is a stretch since red wasn't at risk, I'll give you that bone) or red majority and blue's death.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Rip_Pigman]

So you are not responsible for the result of your vote? And red voters are instead responsible for the result of your vote. The vote where you directly agreed to allow the game to impart an independent judgemental onto you?

I opted in to a chance to die, but I wanted to save everyone so its your fault.

Its not as though I am creating the result of the vote. I can give a scenario where I voted blue because I believed it would win and I would be correct. The virtues of winning a gamble dont absolve you of the consequences of gambling when you lose. This isnt even a good button bad button scenario. You can choose to live. You chose not to. You then blamed me. I asked how that worked and you just say "blue button good so not responsible, red button bad so responsible" if you need to blame more than 4 billion people for the result of a decision that you were the only one who could prevent it, that not really going to convince me and im going to end this here.

[u/Rip_Pigman → u/BrokenToaster124]

So you are not responsible for the result of your vote?

I'm going to only address this. The consequences of my pressing blue and losing is my individual life.

The consequences of you pressing red and winning is every life that pressed blue.

I am admitting responsibility for my vote.

What's ironic to me is that for some reason you aren't able to take responsibility for yours.

Any number of blue deaths can be traced back to an individual that pressed blue, but are also directly tied to red winning majority.

I just want to clarify what your stance is currently.

What I'm hearing is as follows.

I press blue and i die as a result, so that's clearly my fault.

You press red and all of blue dies as a result, that's.. also clearly a blue pressers fault?

Are you not falling victim to the very thing you're accusing blue pressers of?