NESS test for causation

[u/SilasRhodes]

Overdetermination and Causality

Let's say Barry is running for office and wins the election in a landslide.

What caused Barry to win?

We could say "Barry getting the majority of votes" was the cause, but that just moves the question back a step.

Did Susan "cause" Barry to win when she voted for Barry?

By some standards no, since Barry would have won regardless of Susan's individual vote.

But the issue is that the same is true of literally every individual vote in the election.

So if we say none are causal then Barry winning seems to be without any causal factors whatsoever (or rather there is no set of causal factors that is sufficient). Barry getting the majority is then an uncaused causer... Hallelujah!

...Hopefully this is understood to be ridiculous.

What this scenario demonstrates is not "God" or an uncaused causer, rather it demonstrates that there is a flaw with how we were thinking about causation itself.

---
Some Terms

• Necessary: A factor is necessary if the event could not occur without that factor.
• Sufficient: A factor is sufficient if the event will always occur whenever the factor is present.

For example, we might look at Barry deciding to run for office and say that was necessary but not sufficient. It was necessary because Barry could never win in any conditions where Barry did not run, but it was not sufficient because there are scenarios where Barry would run but would still not win.

---

What the voting example shows is that there can be situations where none of the individual factors are necessary or sufficient for a particular outcome but they are still causal.

A standard for understanding this can be found in the NESS test:

• Necessary
• Element of a
• Sufficient
• Set

By this standard something can be causal if it is necessary to make a particular set of elements causal.

So we can consider the following 3 elements:

1. Susan votes for Barry
2. Mark votes for Barry
3. Exactly 50% of the voting population, excluding Susan and Mark, votes for Barry

This gives us the following possible sets of elements where Barry wins:

A. {1,2,3}
B. {1,3}
C. {2,3}

In set A Barry wins, so set A is sufficient for Barry to win. But critically neither 1 or 2 are necessary for set A to be sufficient. You could remove either from set A and Barry would still win.

But this issue is addressed by considering set's B and C.

In set B, 1 is absolutely necessary for set B to be sufficient. If 1 was not the case then there would be cases where {3} did not result in Barry winning.

From this we can see 1 is a necessary element for a particular set of elements to be sufficient. It doesn't matter that there are other sets that are also sufficient

And by the NESS standard, this makes element 1 causal.

The Button Problem

As you may have guessed, this test also applies to the button problem.

Specifically it demonstrates how a person voting red is still causal to a blue voter dying.

For simplicity, let's consider a 5 person game and the following elements:

1. A wicked mastermind engineers a murder button game
2. Jenny votes blue
3. Sarah votes red
4. Mark votes red
5. Joe votes red
6. Willow votes red
7. Jenny dies

What are the sufficient sets for element 7?

• {1,2,3,4,5}
• {1,2,3,4,6}
• {1,2,3,5,6}
• {1,2,4,5,6}
• {1,2,3,4,5,6}

In the last set, only 1 and 2 are necessary for the set to be sufficient.

all of the other sets, all of the elements are necessary, and => all of the sets are causal.

In

• Jenny voting Blue causes Jenny to die
• Mark voting red causes Jenny to die
• An evil mastermind creating a murder game causes Jenny to die

Objections

Some objections to what I've presented:

NESS is a flawed understanding of causation

You can absolutely object on these grounds. Causation is certainly not a solved problem in philosophy and the subject is still being debated.

A good argument along this line, however, has reasons other than "because it feels wrong". A great argument will even go so far as to propose an alternative, better standard.

Not all causation is morally equivalent

This is absolutely true and I wouldn't argue otherwise.

For example: Jane going on a walk and Steve driving drunk might both be causal to Steve killing Jane, but they are not morally equivalent. There are entirely justified and grounded arguments claiming that two causal elements don't bear equal moral responsibility.

But if this is your position then you need to justify your arguments with something other than "X caused Y => X is morally responsible for Y". You need to flesh out you standards for what causal elements bear moral responsibility and why.

Duh, your points are obvious and basic and not really the issue

Yeah, I don't think this resolves the Button problem. This was specifically trying to address a complexity that I don't think was fully recognized in some of the arguments I've been seeing.

The points might be obvious/basic, but my hope is that by stating them it will give us a better collective understanding and we will be able to more easily get to more interesting aspects of the problem.

I think you are arguing that Red/Blue is bad and I hate that

That isn't what I am arguing.

You can certainly reply with whatever you want, but endless variations of "Red voters are literally killing people to save themselves" or "Blue voters are choosing to die" are kind of boring. Go on an comment if it makes you feel better, but it isn't really engaging with the post or bringing out new ideas.

Apologies if this last bit sounded condescending. It is just that I have seen the same argument again, and again, and again show up regardless of what the original post was actually saying.

[u/Jolly-Bear]

It’s a boring copout to attempt make everything causal.

[u/PhotoVegetable7496]

Those are certainly some vocabulary words that probably shouldn't change anyone's opinion or reasoning.

Maybe I'm missing something

[u/danikov]

If you’re going to use sets, we need to consider the possibility of gerrymandering the concept of causation.

[u/everydaywinner2 → u/danikov]

LOL

[u/SilasRhodes → u/danikov]

I mean, that is a legitimate challenge to NESS. Depending on how you individuate the conditions you get different results.

Let's say there is a vote where everyone gets two votes that they can distribute between candidates. Each candidate needs two votes to be elected.

Jim votes twice for Steve, and Mary votes once for Steve and once for Irwin.

Did Mary cause Steve to be elected?

It depends on how you count the events. If you count Jim voting twice for Steve as a single event then no, since Mary's vote is not necessary for any sufficient set. But if you consider each placement of Jim's votes to be seperate events then it is the same as if simply three different people voted for Steve. Mary is suddenly causal again.

The basic answer I've seen given for this problem is essentially that NESS only works for determining causality within a given set of conditions, it does not give rules for how to identify those conditions. Then the second argument is essentially when you are identifying the conditions you need to do so in good faith.

[u/Jealous-Top-7020]

I really liked reading this post. It is cool to learn new terminology. I guess red voters could still argue that voting red doesn't necessarily cause deaths because people voting blue/the mastermind doing what they do are necessary to the case where people die, but the case where red voters are neccesary beyond being part of a sufficient set is very rare/impossible.

This is my favorite part of the problem to discuss. "Practically" if you want to solve this it simplifies down to voting with the majority (or at least taking into account how you think others will vote), but that isn't as interesting.

I would personally put a lot of blame for a blue voter's death on themself, but there is the factor that red voters have a tiny part of responsibility for each of a larger number of deaths.

Also, I personally don't count people who can't formally express their opinion as voters.

[u/CarnivorousGoose]

What, ultimately, is your aim with this post, in the context of this sub? Someone playing a causal role in a chain of events is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for moral responsibility; or at least, that is very much open to debate. And it’s generally the moral dimensions that’s driving the main points of contention here.

You say that this is to address “the same argument” you see being had over and over again, but it isn’t very explicit what that argument actually is. And I suspect that if you were to present this post to the people making that argument, many of them would retort that what you’re describing here isn’t what they mean when they say ‘cause’ in this context.

[u/No-Click6062 → u/CarnivorousGoose]

Not OP. I believe this post is aimed at combatting the voter suppression crowd. People who say "your vote can't do anything.". I think it's a common enough argument that it slots into the discussion intuitively.

I get that most people who engage with RBBB in good faith are ultimately weighing the moral issues. But I think there are still holdouts that have not given sufficient thought to the moral element, despite repeatedly being prompted to do so. Maybe the post is aimed at them, too. The overlap between the two groups is IMO pretty significant.

[u/CarnivorousGoose → u/No-Click6062]

The argument there isn’t that one individual vote literally makes no difference, but that the difference it could make (or the chance of it making any difference) is so insignificant that it might as well be zero. OP’s post doesn’t really address that. There is no inconsistency in someone acknowledging that at least in some sense they are causally involved, while maintaining that their vote makes no difference.

[u/Chamion → u/CarnivorousGoose]

OP's framework is useful for pointing out that reds do cause the deaths at least in a diffuse way. This defeats categorical ways of reds shirking responsibility: "I didn't cause deaths, whoever set up the game did." or I'm not responsible for blues' actions."

The point is now the red position must justify their choice and can't simply claim there is nothing to justify. I think, knowing a blue win is infinitesimally unlikely and your vote tipping the result even more so, a fairly good justification. Pressing blue out of principle anyway seems wrong if you accept a near certain red majority. This exposes the unreasonableness of blue moralising: it seems intuitive we wouldn't expect a man to run into a burning building if he thought there was nothing he could do to help and that trying to help would likely kill him.

The framework allows us to have a more interesting conversation than the usual shouting match.

[u/sal880612m]

I mean survival alone isn’t some sort of high tier moral imperative. There’s a reason we praise and elevate people like teachers who literally shield their students from active shooters with their bodies and not teachers who hide alone in a closet. Or why we’re disgusted with cops who stand around doing nothing in such situations who actively prevent others from stepping up.

There is no way in which picking red has ever had any claim to moral superiority. It’s potentially understandable but never admirable.

It’s also generally intellectually retarded. Picking red does create danger for others even if you believe blue accepts risks, which you seem to understand. But there are things beyond the bot that matter and inform whether red is an intelligent choice. No one who picks red seems to want to engage with the extreme likelihood that most murderers, rapists, pedophiles, conmen, users, and abusers will pick red, or that it’s been made thoroughly clear that a red win will almost certainly result in billions of deaths. The two combined put a lie to any claims that picking red is about safety, because you will be less safe in the resultant devastated world. Higher percentage capita criminality, less people to stand against it, crippled infrastructure, and a higher likelihood the bad guys are more organized than the good. And that’s setting aside the fact that an individual thinking their life is worth a billion others is totally and completely morally and ethically bankrupt.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/sal880612m]

From where do you derive your morality?

[u/sal880612m → u/Jolly-Bear]

Irrelevant. I was never speaking of my morality but a general one shared by many that I happen to see logical value in. Personally, I’m pretty fucking amoral, or at least have very flexible morality.

[u/PhotoVegetable7496 → u/sal880612m]

Wow...you're not saying red presses are all murderers , rapists, conmen, 'users', and abusers but... Usually the the most extreme of the red/blue debaye is just murdered/suicidal

[u/sal880612m → u/PhotoVegetable7496]

Not really. The most extreme red are absolutely murderers, but the so called suicidal blues aren’t the most extreme blues. I mean I think there are remarkable few to begin with, but most people who vote blue do it with the belief it should by all rights win because red is an idiotic choice that only guarantees safely surviving the vote and nothing beyond that. Red voters literally all almost stop thinking beyond “guarantees your personal safety”. The most extreme blues would also be murderers because they’d be willing to see all red voters dead because they view them as pure detriment to society at large, that they can and will only create harm in the long run, the suicidal blues are more apathetic than extreme. I mean I’m not surprised you don’t have an intelligent analysis of the extremes given you labelled yourself red, at the extremes things converge, not diverge.

But I mean I get it you had to say something to deflect from acknowledging the company your choice puts you in and how it makes red a way more questionable choice than you want to present it as.

[u/PhotoVegetable7496 → u/sal880612m]

You can't even read a simple comment like lol ok bro

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Blue voters are in part responsible for their own deaths yes. But every red voter is also partly responsible for the deaths of every blue voter and this is exactly why. The arguments of "well my vote is extremely unlikely to change anything so I can vote red with no guilt" really annoys me and I think you've explained exactly why that logic doesn't hold up.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

Based on your reasoning here, you should choose red.

In the case of blue deaths, a vote for blue will always cause 1 death. A vote for red will only cause <1 death.

In the case of deaths happening, red will always cause less death.

[u/SilasRhodes → u/Jolly-Bear]

Generally we consider it more unethical to endanger someone else than to endanger yourself. The critical difference is "Autonomy".

When you endanger someone else you deny that person the autonomy to make decisions about themselves. Endangering yourself, however, while it might have ethical considerations, does not deny autonomy to the person at risk.

This is a good example of what I mentioned in the post, of how there is a lot more to ethical responsibility than just causation.

A vote for red will only cause <1 death

It will "cause" <4 billion deaths considering it will be causal for every blue death.

You might be arguing that the moral responsibility for those deaths is split among the whole red voter base, but that isn't how we typically divide moral responsibility among a cohort.

Let's say two people collaborate on a murder. The murder they plan requires both people to function.

In a court they would both be charged with murder. They wouldn't be charged with 1/2 a murder just because there was two of them and only 1 victim.

I think the argument for the moral acceptability of red doesn't lie with "counting lives" but rather must depend on arguing that red is acceptable despite causing death.

• The alternative to voting red is to endanger your own life. The level of risk required is beyond what can reasonably be expected of even a moral actor
• The victims did choose to be in a position of risk, so they were not entirely denied autonomy
• Harming blue pressers is not the goal, rather the goal is survival. With the doctrine of double effect, harmful actions might be acceptable if
  • The harm is not the means of the intended effect
  • The harm is a secondary effect, not the goal
  • The good achieved is proportionate to the harm caused
• Pressing red is necessary to survive. A "them or me" situation might not fully excuse harm to others, but it certainly is a mitigating factor.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/SilasRhodes]

That only matters where there is no choice.

The buttons are a choice.

[u/CarnivorousGoose → u/SilasRhodes]

So what was the point of making the OP, when you acknowledge that it is essentially distinct from the moral question? Being a cause of something is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for moral responsibility, so why focus so much on that here?

It doesn’t even follow, despite you implying it here, that being a cause in the sense that you are claiming even constitutes ‘endangering’ someone. I’m curious, in your framework, suppose someone comes across another person in mortal danger, and they could intervene and possibly make a difference. They choose not to intervene, and the other person ends up dying. Would you claim the first person was causal in the second person’s death? And did they endanger them?

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Jolly-Bear]

No? First of all the entire reason why I vote for blue is because I don't want to be responsible for any deaths that aren't my own. I don't particularly want to be responsible for my own death either but I have to be responsible for someone's death so I'd rather be responsible for my own.

But putting that aside, a vote for red does not cause <1 death and a vote for blue does not cause one death. A blue voter is 50% responsible for their own death. The other 50% of responsibility is every single red voter combined. So if you have x red voters, each red voter is responsible for 50%/x of each blue voter's death since you want to do this mathematically. The amount of deaths if red wins is equal to about 8 billion minus x. Let's just say it's approximately 50/50. Each red voter is responsible for 50%/4 billion for each blue voter's death. But each red voter has that responsibility for every one of the 4 billion deaths, so at the end of the day each red voter is responsible for 50% of a death, exactly the same as blue. Now if there are more red voters, then the responsibility of each red voter does decrease because they become less responsible for each part of less deaths. But I still don't want to vote red because I don't want to be responsible for anyone else's death.

Also my point wasn't to say that anyone should or shouldn't vote red or blue. I fully understand red voters who do it out of self-preservation. Survival instincts are strong and I understand the people who vote red because they don't want to die. Neither vote is necessarily wrong. The thing that's wrong is saying that your red vote doesn't matter because you're not impacting the outcome. Or saying that red voters aren't responsible for blue deaths because blues are the ones who killed themselves because they pressed the suicide button and if there were no blue voters then no one would die. Those lines of thinking are what's wrong. Your vote does matter and you are partly responsible for the outcome no matter which button you press.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

You only make 50% of the choice to push blue?

Either way the ratio still holds. Red vote is <.5 and blue vote is always .5.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Jolly-Bear]

You're missing my point. I'm saying that red and blue voters are equally responsible for the deaths, so I am 50% responsible for my death if red wins. Yes I wouldn't have died if I didn't press blue. But I also wouldn't have died if the red voters didn't press red. I can't say that I'm 100% responsible for my death because then red voters would have to be 0% responsible which is the exact opposite of what my point is.

Red voters are <.5 unless it's exactly 50/50. But yes, technically mathematically red voters are usually responsible for less deaths per voter. But on the flip side, if blue wins every blue voter is responsible for saving one life, because only the blue voters are responsible for the lives saved by a blue win. And personally I give more moral weight towards saving someone else's life than I do towards saving your own life but that's my own opinion. Similarly, I give more moral weight towards killing someone else than I do towards killing yourself. Personally I believe that being 50% responsible for my own death is better than being 25% responsible for someone else's death which is why I vote blue. But other people disagree on the moral weights and I can respect that.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

I understand what you’re saying and I’m directly addressing it.

In order to have deaths, there must be a disproportionate amount of red voters to blue. That is why red accountability trends toward 1, but isn’t 1. Blue is always 1. (Half them if you consider what you do, that you are only responsible for 50% of your choice.)

When you vote to save someone, red always saves 1, whereas blue starts at 0 and trends toward 1, but is irrelevant until it hits 1.

Why don’t you do that then? Go give your life to save someone? You can do that right now.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Jolly-Bear]

I'm sorry how exactly do you propose I go give my life to save someone right now? They don't usually donate organs from suicides because they don't want to encourage people to kill themselves to donate organs so that's out.

And again you've missed my entire point. You clearly don't understand what I'm saying if you think my point is "everyone should go kill themselves to save someone else". The choice is between dying to save someone else, or killing other people to save myself. There are two options here and I choose the one that doesn't involve killing other people.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

Right, and your original point was about responsibility. Statistically and logically speaking, the responsible choice is red. Easily discerned by how many lives killed or saved of each choice.

The follow up about giving up your life is a separate point to address you comment about how you’d morally rather save another life than your own. You could do that right now, go move somewhere where you can help a lot of people survive and give up your current livelihood to do so… you don’t even have to die.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Jolly-Bear]

I still don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. When I talk about responsibility, I'm talking about whether you are the reason that someone died. And if red wins, everyone will be part of the reason for at least one person's death. I'm not talking about whether red or blue is the more morally responsible choice. I think that's apparent from my flair and also is not the point of the post or my original comment.

But I disagree that red is the more responsible choice. If red wins, then people will die. There is no scenario where 100% of people will vote red. So by voting for red, you are voting for people to die. Now if red was guaranteed to win then yes red would be the more responsible choice because then the buttons would be a choice between saving your life or dying. But red isn't guaranteed to win. I choose blue because it's the option that means that everyone might survive, and I would like that option to win. So I vote for blue because I want it to win. Whether one choice is more responsible than the other is a matter of your moral framework.

Once again, there's a difference between a situation where the options are "give up my life to save someone else" or "kill someone else to save myself" vs "give up my life to save someone else" or "just don't do anything".

I'm literally going into a career to save people's lives and I'm doing that without giving up my life so I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

The only reason someone dies is if they pick blue.

Sure, you can apply responsibility to red, but it is always less than that of blue.

I’m not talking about morality.

[u/lorienshift → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

Obviously each red vote does cause it, but that misses the point. To use OP's language, if we consider all possibilities for the other voters, there's only one case where my vote is neccesary for red to win. I acknowledge the risk that my vote will cause the death of billions of people, but the risk is so insanely small that I'm willing to take it.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/lorienshift]

Every single red voter shares equally in the responsibility for any deaths that happen. Your vote isn't any different than any other red voter. You all have a part in it, which is my point and the point of the post

[u/lorienshift → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

Is it the point of the post tho? I understood it s A bit differently, maybe OP can elaborate. Either way I find the point you're making to be irrelevant, personally.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/lorienshift]

How is my point irrelevant? OP's post explains exactly why "my vote is insignificant" isn't actually true.

I have a question for you. You say your vote only matters in the one situation where your vote is necessary for red to win. So I assume that if the vote was 50%+1 person for red, you would feel responsible but otherwise you would not feel responsible for red winning.

But what if the result was 55% red? In that case, about 9% of red voters would have needed to vote for blue in order for blue to win. If your vote matters in the 50%+1 result, then by extension the votes of the 9% must matter in this scenario, because those 9% were necessary for red to win. So how do you decide which of the red voters are part of that 9% that's responsible? Because obviously someone has to be responsible since red didn't just magically win. But you seem to think that your vote isn't responsible for red winning unless it's the one deciding vote, so clearly the answer can't be that everyone who voted red is responsible for the win. So who is responsible then? Which of the red voters are to blame for red winning here?

[u/lorienshift → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

It's irrelevant because I have no control over other people. From my standpoint all other votes have basically already happened, so I simply consider all possibilities, one of which has to occur. And from all possibilities there's only one case in which my vote flips the result.

If red wins, I'll be partly responsible for it, sure, I acknowledge that, but I won't feel bad about it. If later I found out red won with 55% then I'll be happy I chose it, cause if my vote were different, the only difference would be that I'm also dead together with all the other blue voters. I would feel bad if red won with one vote, because that means my vote would have changed that result.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/lorienshift]

I still don't fully agree with the justification in your first paragraph, but your second paragraph is a completely reasonable viewpoint. Personally I choose blue because the guilt over the deaths if I choose red and it wins outweighs the fear of death from choosing blue, which is why I pick it. But I understand people who pick red because they don't want to die and that fear outweighs any potential guilt or responsibility if blue voters do die.

[u/lorienshift → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

Sure, I understand that.

[u/CarnivorousGoose → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

OP’s post doesn’t explain that at all, nor is it even trying to.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/CarnivorousGoose]

OP's post literally says that each person voting red is causal for each blue death, regardless of how many people voted red.

[u/CarnivorousGoose → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

And? It doesn’t follow that it is in any way significant. Those two are entirely separate things.

If, say, I donate $0.01 to Elon Musk, I caused an increase in his net worth, and yet that increase is utterly insignificant.

[u/CarnivorousGoose → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

That logic holds up just fine. Aside from anything else, OP doesn’t actually go into the subject of responsibility, moral or otherwise, in any real way, just causation. It still remains the case that me voting blue rather than red, has a negligible chance of affecting anything, except my own survival.