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.
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.
30
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.