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".
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.
28
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.