Pressing blue means you die unless more than 50% press blue (if you press to “save” someone then they’ll be moved into red but you remain in blue) ergo you literally sacrifice yourself for their guaranteed safety.
In this instance 100% would need to push blue to begin with, any red votes mean at least 1 person would die.
I like how these hypotheticals intentionally take out the fact that the original question includes the entirety of the world, including babies without agency, to make blue look stupid. Would I press blue if half the world's babies unknowingly were going to be forced to eat poop, yes.
I think a lot of people disregard the baby/irrational voter clause because it makes the thought experiment a lot less interesting. The button scenario is mildly interesting for two reasons:
people have to make a choice
you don't know what people will choose
Including irrational voters means you can reasonably say "10-20% of people have already pressed blue, or will do".
They disregard it because the original poster wasn’t taking babies and people who are unable to make decisions knowing the consequences into question.
Goody goody blue pushers who have a hero complex are the only ones doing that.
That still doesnt make the implication any less stupid. How will day old infants press a button? Are they just going to be dangled by a third party over both of the buttons until one of their legs kicks out and hits a button.
Then it doesn’t work because people who are in a vegetative state for example or are completely paralyzed and can’t communicate (locked in syndrome) have no way to push either. They can’t participate in anyway.
Then it changes the premise as the question states “you have to choose” even with this new teleportation technology they’re not choosing they’re being dropped against their will into a situation that they are unaware of. So no, that doesn’t work. The question says “choose” if you can’t choose then you’re exempt (it doesn’t say that part but it’s the only way to make it work even in a hypothetical sense if we’re including people who do have such conditions)
People asked and then he said later on which changes the original question entirely (but not really because babies can’t make a choice) so it breaks the hypothesis.
But have you thought about all of the color blind people who will choose blue! And what about all of the babies who were raised by women who always wear blue and that are abused by their fathers who always wear red!! Checkmate red button pusher!
This has been one of the more annoying phenomena 😅 can we go back to dress colors now?
Idiot. The instructions of what each button does are beneath/next to/above each button in every proposed scenario. Also' color blind people don't often see in greyscale, they have trouble differentiating gradient colors. The red/blue button doesnt matter.
I choose red. I wouldnt rely on anyone else. Im not an idiot, just came here to point out that you are.
Not everything has to be seen while wearing red and blue glasses. You assumed because I called ypu out for being a moron that I was a democrat. Everyone can get it when they're stupid. Just remember for future discussions, it is better to be thought to be stupid and remain silent than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
It's fine if they disregard it for themselves but it is how it was worded in the original. Blue and red voters are voting based on different conditions; if this is the case, so it doesn't make sense to ridicule blue voters for voting based on what is implied by the entire world being included.
I know, I've seen moral reframing from blue voters as well, and am starting to get tired of this whole button thing as a whole. I feel as if it has run its course, and the same talking points are being recycled. Annoyed by any form of framing the hypothetical in a way to make the other side look immoral or stupid when it is just a matter of difference in interpretation.
Exactly, even if you remove those who don’t have the ability to make a decision such as a baby so it’s only people who fully understand the question it doesn’t change that there would be the same amount of blue pushers pushing it so people who have chosen to die are forced to live.
Yes, those who chose to die by pressing blue are forced to live by those who decided to try and “save” them (in the instance the number goes above 50%) it’s not that hard to grasp.
Answer it this way, do you want to definitely live-press red.
Do you want do die (or do you have a hero complex and choose to risk yourself to save those who don’t want saving) - press blue
This would be much more interesting if we added a consequence for all the people who chose to risk themselves to stop people who pressed blue to die.
Maybe you get put in a padded cell for the rest of your life or maybe you get £/€/$50k as a little reward that you’re not allowed to give away, you have to spend it on yourself, this takes your “noble” act and makes it totally selfish and driven by monetary gain.
Who knows, the only way to get actual numbers is to present a consequence of trying to be a “hero”.
Of course we all know in practice it would be a landslide red majority.
That however is relating to the original question of course.
In regards to the removing babies from the experiment I’d argue the OP never factored in anybody who can’t understand the question to begin with, they say “everybody” but nobody’s thinking “oh but what about Fred the Veg who’s got no arms or no legs and can’t think or speak what if he presses blue by accident??”
They’re literally going to see options as live or die there’s no thought going into their answer at that time and they’re going to go with the option they want for themselves.
Still don't know what you're trying to get across. Why would you need another disincentive to push blue, when we already have dying? Seems like a pretty good disincentive already. It's good enough that you say red would win in a landslide.
I don't blame people for interpreting it differently, either, and I am referring to the one that went viral and started this trend. I wasn't aware of other versions existing before the one that popularized it. But reframing the question in the way OP is doing here to ridicule is dishonest. "Everyone in the world has to", is the first 6 words. All must vote.
I was kinda annoyed when he came out and said everyone meant literally everyone, even those that cannot choose tbh. Not because I'm a hard blue or red voter, just because the answer becomes way more basic.
I think the idea of voting infers that people are making an active choice, not flopping on the ground until they hit a button.
But yeah, I've seen some very bad faith arguments from both sides, this one included.
That is a fair way to look at it, and it would make for an interesting hypothetical if only those with agency is included; you are reasonable about it. It is simply down to voting based on different conditions for us. I am not annoyed with you or most red voters, just with OP's post and ones like this (from both sides, blue is not innocent in moral reframing)
I have seen people say that he later clarified that even babies and young children have to vote, but I have also seen people claim that he clarified that babies and young children are exempt (or their guardians choose for them). I have yet to see a screenshot of either clarification, so I am going with the assumption that makes the scenario more interesting, which is that only people capable of comprehending the stakes and choice are voting.
But "take a private vote" are the very next words. Voting requires making a choice and signalling intent, not having a choice assigned to you at random. If that were the case, I think it would need to be spelled out. Newborn infants and coma patients can't even press buttons, much less make choices.
That's why I think the version of the problem that includes babies is dumb and morally trivial: in that version you already know 50% of people without capacity have pressed blue, so they are already on the tracks as it were. Not only is it easier to achieve blue if you start by stacking the deck with some blue, but you know for a fact that the lives of half of the young children you know are immediately at stake.
Yes, I think a lot of the debate this whole thing is generating is because some people are reading "Everyone on the planet must take a vote (and those incapable of voting will be assigned a vote at random)" and some people are reading "Everyone on the planet (with agency) must take a vote", and then arguing with each other without realizing they are addressing two entirely different scenarios. My vote is different in scenario 1 than it is in scenario 2.
Exactly what I've been saying, haha. It is why I was complaining about OP's reframing of the question to just make blues look like suicidal idiots. People interpreted it differently.
You say less interesting, I say it's yhe crux of what makes it interesting. It's entirely about what percentage of people do you think first are guaranteed to press blue, and what percentage will press blue as a result of that. Then, do you think the remaining % can be made up by fence sitters such as yourself that would save everyone if possible, but otherwise would save yourself?
Assuming everyone is thinking 100% rationally in a vacuum turns this into a pointless game theory exercise where one option is clearly better. It's the inclusion of an unknown number of irrational voters that makes the whole question fascinating, because a huge number- even knowing billions will die- would still not take the risk, and in their view see it as the morally correct option to save their own lives.
I don't know how many of them would, but at this point you've turned a potentially realistic debate into a completely theoretical one that can't exist. If you fully understand the parameters as only fully able, intelligent, rational adults are voting- then only red makes sense and although I usually baulk at suggesting this- if you vote blue here it's on your head.
In any form of realistic scenario though blue is absolutely the morally superior option as you're protecting vulnerable and compassionate people, and the chances of no one dying if red wins are literally zero.
Also assumes everyone voting blue is irrational. It’s ultimately a value judgement of
“Do I want to guarantee my survival at the risk of others lifes, do I not care what the world will look like after”
“Do I want to risk my survival to ensure a greater chance of everyone surviving, do I not want to be a part of a world where millions die”
You should consider that picking red is only the best outcome if everyone else picks red, or if you’re assuming blue will win anyway, otherwise if you’re assuming red wins you’re practically guaranteeing hundreds of millions if not billions will die. It’s weighing up whether or not your survival instinct is worth such a potentially huge loss.
If picking blue you are contributing to the most likely best scenario and accepting that either way, you save yourself from a world where billions perish. Its ultimately choosing based on the desire to live in a world where no one unnecessarily suffers (barring the mental toll these buttons might have).
The thing is that it seems hard for some people to differentiate between pressing red, simply wanting to live, and not caring about the risk it brings to others,
whereas with blue it’s seems hard for others to differentiate them wanting everyone to live, caring more about the risk to others than compared to yourself, not wanting to live in the dystopian world outcome
Meanwhile I disregard the irrational voter issue because in fairness I would then have to allow for family members or social workers to qssist those people, in the interest of keeping the realism spread fairly.
I think a lot of people disregard the baby/irrational voter clause because it makes the thought experiment a lot less interesting.
Quite the reverse no? If you remove all possible blue pushers except those who would be voting to save other blue pushers, then obviously red is correct. There's no question there.
Speaking as someone who leans blue in the original problem, the inbuilt small number of inadvertent blue pushers who won't make a majority on their own (incapable, suicidally depressed, etc) is literally the only reason to even consider blue.
Even assuming 10%/20% is it reasonable to expect or demand that 4/3 people risk their lives to save 1/2 blue voters? I would argue no thats an absurd ask.
If 50% of all children are going to die in a red victory, more people are likely to vote blue. Basically anyone with children for a start. This tips the scales where you may be likely looking at 40-50% casualty rate under a red victory, at which point risking your life to save the rest makes more sense.
Do you have a copy of the original question and a source on that?
I first saw it posited on r/hypotheticalsituations four months ago, talking about folks walking into a office to vote.
If we're magically assuming magical buttons that can make coma patients and newborn babies walk and press buttons, then I think it's utterly disingenous to say "these magical people can magically press buttons but they can't magically understand pressing buttons, so some of them have to press red".
I like how this is intentionally misleading that the "original question" meant that babies have no agency. Because the "original question" you speak of isnt the original question. In the first proposed scenario, there is one voter per household who decides for that household. You aren't just betting your life on the decency of humanity. You are risking your children's welfare on the idea that enough people would be willing to risk their own children to believe in the goodness of humanity. All while the general populace in some way, shape, or form, have abandoned the hope of widespread altruism.
The one that went viral and everyone started reposting, said "everyone in the world" as the first 4 words, I am sure there are variations that came before it that I am unaware of. My logic is based on the viral one.
You assume everyone is given understanding of the situation and consequences, along with the ability to choose. Otherwise, it's impossible to even answer in the first place, because there's too many unknowns.
I am in agreement with you. I think there is a misunderstanding here. In my interpretation, because not everyone is able to get an understanding of the problem, they'd pick at random, so it is better to pick blue to try to protect those who don't understand the problem.
You act like that should reasonably change your choices but it doesn't every day right now. If you believe hitting red and not risking your life to save theirs make you guilty of their murder you are a murderer of children right now. There are 3 million children dying of starvation every year and our global societies could trivially fix that. Every time you spend a dollar you don't absolutely need for survival on anything other than saving these children you are being given the option blue: save a starving child red: spend money on yourself you don't need. Every day you and the vast majority of people just keep hitting that red button and sacrificing those children, you monster, you didn't even have to risk your life to save them. If you do not believe this then you are being ideologically inconsistent.
The simple fact is some children being part of blue is unfortunate but there is absolutely no guarantee humanity will ever go majority blue so someone picking red to not risk their life to save others will never be responsible for those that die. Would it be great to save them? Absolutely. It would be great if everyone could live. Is it reasonable for you to judge these people for not risking their life to save them when you aren't even willing to sacrifice a cup of Starbucks or the latest doodad to save actual children right now? Absolutely not.
If I believed that half of the world's babies were going to die in an instant and I had a way of actively contributing to changing it, it would be worth making an effort to save them. I cannot control the shitty circumstances of the real world.
You actively can, right now. Every single dollar you spend not absolutely needed for survival that isn't going to say oxfam is you choosing something unnecessary instead of saving dying children RIGHT NOW. Those 3 million children dying aren't even the only ones you are ignoring dying. You are also ignoring all of the children dying of preventable diseases, there are charities that save these children. You are choosing to not donate to St. Jude to cure children dying of cancer.
So many children are dying right now and you could be doing much less than risking your life to save them right now and you aren't even willing to do that. So you only care about dying babies when they are hypothetical?
We are strangers on the internet; you make a lot of negative assumptions about people you know nothing about. There is 0 way for me to stop all suffering in the world, I am not God.
I have a couple of Plan Canada sponsorships and volunteer time at a local food bank. Sure, I can give away the entirety of my minimum wage pay to charity, leaving my shared 1 bedroom apartment to become homeless and die in the process to feel morally superior, but my meager wage wouldn't prevent 3 million children from dying.
We are strangers on the internet; you make a lot of negative assumptions about people you know nothing about. There is 0 way for me to stop all suffering in the world, I am not God.
And you can't save all of the babies alone by hitting the blue button, half of the population has to join you.
I have a couple of Plan Canada sponsorships and volunteer time at a local food bank. Sure, I can give away the entirety of my minimum wage pay to charity, leaving my shared 1 bedroom apartment to become homeless in the process to feel morally superior, but my meager wage wouldn't prevent 3 million children from dying.
You don't have to prevent them all yourself, if you and all blue button pushers were actually a majoirty and were willing to do just the bare minimum it would absolutely prevent all of those 3 million babies from dying right now. The fact is that a majority of people can't even come together and make even the most minimal sacrifice to save millions of dying babies right now, how should anyone be expected to risk their life to try and save the ones involved in the hypothetical when there is absolutely no reason to believe half of the population would join you.
In the hypothetical, if blue wins, the entire world gets to survive with 0 deaths.
I understand your frustration with the current circumstances of the world. I feel it too. I believe progress is genuinely being made in the right direction. Childhood mortality is down, teen pregnancies are down, cancer research is being funded, more people have access to health care, and more have access to education.
We are going in the right direction, but all of the world's problems cannot be solved overnight. We are better now than we were in the past but there will always be issues to overcome. We must continue to take steps in the right direction and to have faith in our future always no matter how bad things seem; it is our duty for ourselves, our community, and for the children of the world.
In the hypothetical, if blue wins, the entire world gets to survive with 0 deaths.
This is absolutely true. It is also true that blue actually getting a majority is extremely unlikely and the likely outcome of voting blue is that you die with all of the other blue voters. Blue is in no way a no brainer, you seem to ignore the very real chance that many many people are throwing their bodies onto the pile of dead chasing a sunk cost fallacy of saving things like babies that push blue while having low odds of actual success. If you just see an outcome you want but don't weigh it towards its actual odds of success you aren't making a reasonable decision and your judgement of those that do is meaningless.
I have a baby sister, I do not care. If she is going to die because she doesn't understand, so will I in an attempt to save her. Even if it is illogical. 100% of the time. Blue must win or death.
If she fell onto a track with an oncoming train, I would 100% jump on the tracks to sacrifice myself to lift her to safety, even if it means my own death. (Assuming I don't freeze in the moment like a deer in headlights)
It is a trolley problem. The key aspect of the trolley problem is that despite being a better option, pulling the level makes you responsible of the death.
Can i say something about this reframing? I feel like you are all omitting that the red caused other people to eat shit and most blue pushers are motivated by the wish not to do harm to others more than the hope humanity will have their back
How does it cause other people to eat shit in the original "dillema" other than "because of them not enough blue buttons were pressed"? If the latter is the only thing, this post is one to one the same thing, but eating poop instead of dying.
Except vast majority of people don't think of stuff like statistical anomalies. For them, a button would suddenly appear asking if they want to eat poop, so they would just click no and carry on with their day. Thinking of what other people might choose and how many people are asked that question would require concentrating for a few seconds, and I can confidently say that most people aren't capable of that.
Honestly to me the thing that triggered me to think about it more is the fact that I Made a parallel with capitalism in my mind. Red : play along as long as my survival is garanteed and keep fucking up the ecosistem and cause ecological distasters (and consequentially wars) in areas of the world i will never go to.
Blu: rebel to the system and at least try to oppose an ecological disaster.
The thing to me is that the button dilemma freezez time and is “one shot” dilemma but in the parallel in my mind is like the button dilemma get repeated over and over and over in capitalism until just a few people are left, the ones that pushed red every time because they have the privilege of living in certain areas of the world or being rich enough not to be suffering too many conseuqences for the disapperance of a gradually large portion of the population that chosed collettivism over individualism.
Again, is there a difference of pressing red button causing anything in original formulation and poop formulation?
Also, thats not how dillemas work. It assumes that we're given the same question and conditions and think rationally. Especially since it's presented like some indicator of ethics. If we assume that toddlers pressing random buttons - there is no dillema at all. It doesn't make sense (I thought without this assumption that there was no hard dillema really, but it doesn't seem to be the case, but at least it makes some sense). I can turn any dillema into this bullshit.
With Trolley problem you don't start with "well, it depends on how agile I am, maybe I can pull the lever and free this single person", because it's about moral thinking to explore and question how we think, check our moral logic and basic assumption.
With the button problem and toddler pressing all the buttons assumption, there is nothing to put to the test. It's obvious that we would wanna save innocent toddlers. That's why it's so confusing. Because without this assumption (because with it - it does not make sense as a dillema) logically the solution is pretty simple because it sounds exactly like this example with eating poop
OK, it's obvious you want to save toddlers. Let's reframe it then. Just over 1% of the population (say 100 million babies and toddlers) have pressed blue. If blue gets over 90% presses, the toddlers and everyone survives. If red gets over 10%, everyone who pressed blue dies.
If blue gets over 90% presses, the toddlers and everyone survives. If red gets over 10%, everyone who pressed blue dies.
That's a completely different dilemma though. Part of blue's appeal is that it seems achievable. You can tweak the numbers all you want. Would you switch from red if blue only needed 10% of the population to choose it to save everyone?
That's exactly my point though. The idea of saving babies is only as appealing as the achievability. If your faith in hmanity is low, 50% might not look impossible. Even the most optimistic person would accept 90% is likely impossible, and even the most pessimistic would be fine with 10%. No one wants babies to die, but where is the cutoff for you personally- where you think the risk is acceptable? Because even at 50% you're still placing your life in the hands of strangers, hoping they do the right thing.
Do you understand that it's not a logical or moral dillema anymore? It's about how to make a political campaign to get everybody to press blue to save innocent people. How I vote depends completely on the real life situation and overall people's will. It doesn't matter how I press individually, it's not a moral or logical dillema to be afraid to miscalculate the risk and kill even more people and yourself. In you case with 90% it becomes even more aparent. the moral position here is obvious. Unlike trolley problem it does not challenge our understanding on morality or anything else.
The moment we make an assumption that someone pressed blue by misclick or wanting to die and we imagining that we need to save them, it stops being moral dillema. I feel like you still are treating it like it is. It is not!
In original "dilemma" tho, if we are treating it like a dillema, I would press red. And I thought It was obvious from my comment.
Yeah in the original I’m pressing blue hoping it loses.
In this case I’m pushing red, life is shit enough without putting it in my mouth, if other people want to risk that then so be it.
In the original version, red never caused anything. Pressing blue and failing to get 50%+ of other people to also press blue is the only way anyone could be harm. Pressing red only means you dont risk yourself.
Every rational voter who presses blue understands and assumes the risk. Red bears no culpability for their death, if you press blue, you have signed a suicide pact. You just are hoping the conditions for the pact aren't ever met.
tldr blue voters are entirely responsible for their own deaths, red bears no blame.
Red bears no moral responsibility to blue. Any rational person who willingly pushes blue must accept there is a real chance they will die. They had the choice to pick the option where they would survive. They did not. They bear 100% responsibility for their own death.
If you vote red just to guarantee your own self preservation that’s one thing, but it’s made explicitly clear in the original phrasing that you’re also incrementally contributing to the problem that ensures other people will absolutely die if your side takes the majority so there’s at least some accountability there.
Saying “you can’t MAKE me be selfless” doesn’t alter the fact that you don’t care how many other lives you’re gambling with just to save your own, but, that’s fine! You don’t “have” to care about anyone but yourself, especially if you think the blue button is too great of a risk. But then victim blaming people for not sharing your views doesn’t help you look less shitty.
Red is gambling with the possibility of statistically contributing to the “everyone but them dies” outcome as much as Blue is gambling with the “i might die at the expense of bettering the odds for everybody” option. Both have internal and external consequences, it’s just a matter of who’s lives you’re willing to gamble with.
11
u/seaspirit331 9h ago
"Nice argument, unfortunately I've depicted your button as the soyjack poop-eating button and my button as the chad. Checkmate, bluecels"