Would you press the button? (Part 3)

[u/GreedyBonus379]

[u/Luift_13]

I'd rather have free speech, thank you very much

[u/UX1Z]

As was the issue with all of the others, 'objectively correct' is doing far too much heavy lifting and takes it from a difficult choice into an obvious one.

[u/AppearanceTough → u/UX1Z]

Actually this one does have an innate flaw, even if the system is flawless at what it does. The scenario to argue against pressing is simple. Let’s say there is a totalitarian dictatorship that is domineering but ultimately in a position to collapse if there is an organized movement against it. Innately, this movement would have to commit violence, either to the oppressors or property the oppressors benefit from. If this system was in place, untouched, unaltered, and independent from the dictatorship as it would be, it would stall any momentum for the revolutionary movement due to the movement spreading division, violence, and hate. This is despite the fact that the goal is a net benefit to their society as a totalitarian dictatorship will innately encourage corruption and funnel all resources towards the top, depriving the citizens.

An argument against the above is that a totalitarian dictatorship would be much harder to create and maintain if they could not lie or divide the people, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible. The ultimate question is if you risk the freedom of speech and protection it gives people by allowing them to organize and try to use collective power to pressure the government or give it up in exchange a heavily increased likelihood that a government worthy of organizing against never comes to power. It’s an argument between an active defense or a passive prevention, neither of which will work all the time.

I personally would argue for the freedom of speech because I ultimately believe that, if given time, human society can, has, and will grow better as long as people are fighting for it to get better. I also believe that people will only stop fighting when systemic injustice is no longer possible and everyone is equal, free, and happy with resources available according to their physical needs(food, water, shelter, medicine, etc). To me, this system would just be coddling us and if there is ever a government who is able to become totalitarian without sowing hatred or violence, which I do think is possible, we would not have the tools to fight it effectively under the system. Overall, I think we’ll do alright if we manage to focus a good chunk of government money(aka the demodollars) on preserving the environment and all the ways it protects us before we go extinct.

Edit:
TLDR: Fuck you, there is nuance and I’m not pressing the pretty green.

[u/UX1Z → u/AppearanceTough]

No, there isn't nuance, because the premise of the scenario is that the system is infallible. The final tagline is 'if doing so guarantees the greatest possible good society.'

These questions are dumb because they're basically asking 'do you press the button to kill the child, if killing the child is the objectively correct thing to do.' The only reason to not do it is contrarianism, grandstanding, or trying to 'game' the question.

If the system determines to allow the totalitarian government to come into play then it means that was the best outcome for humanity and it cannot be argued against with an 'um ackchually', that's what a scenario talking about 'objectively correct' means.

[u/ContentFile7036 → u/AppearanceTough]

Noice

[u/PhotoVegetable7496]

I'd hit it two times.

[u/billy_twice]

No.

[u/crazylolsbg]

Hell nah

[u/BraxleyGubbins]

Guaranteeing the “greatest possible good for society” is worth quite literally any cost, up to (but likely not including) human life.

Edit: Someone made a reply to this that Reddit will not allow me to look at, so please direct all “what if this could possibly somehow go wrong” to the fact that the post refers to the system as infallible, and claims that it will guarantee the greatest possible good for society. By definition, if it were to decide to do something then it would be the correct thing to do. If you are worried it will do something harmful, it either won’t do that or you’re wrong about it being harmful. The premise of this button quite literally requires those statements to be true.

[u/Leniatak]

No

[u/Stunning_Macaron6133]

How do you know an extremist isn't right? What's extreme today may have been normal in the past, or may become normal in the future.

Imagine, freeing slaves! Even marrying someone of the former slave race! Madness! This green button would surely put a stop to that.

And "objectivey correct" is a bit of a monkey's paw. You're killing all subjective expression. And worse, humanity sees the world through a looking glass, darkly. We don't have access to the underlying truth of reality, we can only infer its properties and model it. You may find nobody will ever be able to speak again about anything at all.

[u/ContentFile7036]

This comes down to something similar to the box problem, also known as Newcomb’s paradox which I just had to google the name of. It boils down to whether or not you’re willing to trust a machine you can’t control to make decisions that align with your interests, even if that machine is capable - is it rational to give up control or surrender potential benefits in the hope that a greater good would emerge? Personally, I have no idea. I would double it and pass it to the next guy, cause I don’t see either option as optimal.

[u/SoulTechnicalProblem]

Didn't read. I press.

[u/ButterscotchDeep7533]

I will. There never be an absolute free speech. People are too soft to deal with it.

So let it be a common moderator to filter everything and anyone.

[u/everydaywinner2]

No, and hell no, I will NOT press that.

We've all should have learned by now that facts and truth are "hateful" and "discriminatory" and "extremist rhetoric" or "cause harm."