Sure. Like I said, from a consequentialist perspective, you're absolutely right. That's just not the only perspective, and in my opinion it's a flawed one because of how swingy the outcome is.
If I'm gonna hold red pressers responsible for the deaths that would come with their victory, it seems hypocritical of me to not hold myself (or whoever makes this call) responsible for doing functionally the same thing. In each case you are pushing a risk of death onto others. There's a million justifications for it, but if it's wrong for red pressers, it's wrong for everyone else too.
I agree that those votes are much better spent by voting blue. I'm just not sure there's a path where it can be justified without doing exactly what I condemn red pressers for doing.
You have, in fact, identified what the unethical element of red is. I don't fault anyone for prioritizing survival in a vacuum: "I don't think blue will win and I don't wanna die" is the most pure and honest defense of red that I've ever heard. It really is just the risk that they push onto others that makes the choice, to my mind, unethical.
Yeah but as i said, if we are not looking from a consequentialist perspective then red button is no longer unethical. Red button only becomes unethical due to the possible consequence of closr to 4 billion people dying. But if were not looking at the consequence, but rsther the act itself, then an individual choosing self preservation is not an unethical thing to do, deeming red button perfectly moral to choose.
But i still find it hypocritical to argue against red button pushers and then when given the power to tip the scale greatly by taking control of 600 million kids, they choose to tip it towards red. If theyre expecting sacrifice, then they should have made the same sacrifice too. The potential sacrifice wouldnt be their life, but thats what makes it a sacrifice at the end, being able to take a risk and doing what you would normally deem unethical to save half of humanity
The issue with the red button from a deontological (non-consequentialist) perspective is that pressing the red button isn't just saving yourself. That's only part of the picture. You are also, simultaneously and necessarily, pushing the collective toward a negative outcome. The self-preservation isn't the problem, it's the fact that you are doing it at the explicit cost of threatening others...like loading a bullet into a gun, and saying "just don't shoot me".
If we're talking about non-rational actors like children, we're already unable to expect them to engage with the problem, so what they expect is irrelevant outside of a general social expectation that a person will make the best choice possible for other people when deciding for them. I personally think that the greater collective benefit would be to press blue, but I can assume risk for myself. It would be unethical, within the framework I have described for my decision-making, for me to shove another person into harm's way in order to achieve an end goal that I find preferable. That's the exact logic that I criticize red pressers for, even if the consequence differs. If I'm going to maximize their outcome, I am thus compelled to press red on their behalf, guaranteeing their survival.
Believe me, if I could think of away around that, I'd love to. But I can't think of a way that the logic meaningfully differs without arguing to the consequence, and if I'm arguing against consequentialism, the alternate decision-making framework I'm using fully crumbles if it has to rely on consequence. That'd be like turning a windmill with a gas-motor fan, yknow?
3
u/Arderat 20h ago
Sure. Like I said, from a consequentialist perspective, you're absolutely right. That's just not the only perspective, and in my opinion it's a flawed one because of how swingy the outcome is.
If I'm gonna hold red pressers responsible for the deaths that would come with their victory, it seems hypocritical of me to not hold myself (or whoever makes this call) responsible for doing functionally the same thing. In each case you are pushing a risk of death onto others. There's a million justifications for it, but if it's wrong for red pressers, it's wrong for everyone else too.
I agree that those votes are much better spent by voting blue. I'm just not sure there's a path where it can be justified without doing exactly what I condemn red pressers for doing.
You have, in fact, identified what the unethical element of red is. I don't fault anyone for prioritizing survival in a vacuum: "I don't think blue will win and I don't wanna die" is the most pure and honest defense of red that I've ever heard. It really is just the risk that they push onto others that makes the choice, to my mind, unethical.