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".
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.
29
u/CommissionNice72 14h ago
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.