Anonymous #2 2w

How do you figure?

4

Anonymous #3 2w

Picking blue creates the conditions that introduce risk into the system in the first place. If nobody picked blue, nobody would need saving. Those who choose blue are actually the ones endangering people.

4

Anonymous OP 2w

Because WHY would you pick red unless you’re evil??

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Why is opting out of the risk scenario evil? There is a risk-free option available to everyone and nobody is forced to choose blue. In fact, choosing blue is what endangers people in the first place. If the objective is to save lives, then why wouldn't you be happy that red choosers were never in danger?

4

Anonymous OP 2w

to save your self and knowingly condemn others to death is pretty evil

4

Anonymous #4 2w

Who condemned who? I would argue that by pressing the blue button, people who otherwise would have chosen red now feel unnecessarily pressured to choose blue. It is blue who is condemning others to death, not red.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Blue button pushers create an entirely avoidable death spiral enforced by coercion and moral shaming, even though they're the ones who caused the problem to begin with. They so desperately want others to join them, and that is far from compassionate imo.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

You're correct. Except that most people have consistently said they'd press it!

11

Anonymous #6 2w

I guess so. A completely avoidable outcome for everyone involved.

0

Anonymous #3 2w

Well, the logical reason to ever pick red is that it’s actually the logical answer when it comes to game-theory weighing consequences and success outcomes

5

Anonymous #5 2w

This argument sounds logical, but it’s technically invalid because it chooses to IGNORE the probabilities. If anyone chooses blue at all, you’ve contributed to killing that person, and only 25% of people need to press red for that person to die. Choosing red is not neutral. Each red push contributes more to the kill threshold, and at a faster rate than the blue threshold, too.

7

Anonymous #7 2w

The person who chose blue contributed to killing both themselves and others - not red. They added to the pool of possible victims, increasing the possible death count and strengthening the sense of moral obligation others feel to also choose blue, thus putting more people at risk of dying. Choosing red is just refraining from contributing to a system with catastrophic downside and predictable second and third order of effects.

-1

Anonymous #7 2w

The optimal solution is to choose that which doesn't introduce unnecessary catastrophic risk. Every person who chose blue needlessly put themselves and others at risk of dying.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Yes I understand your logic. But your logic ignores the weight of the probabilities, and ignores the fact that, for the best outcome societally, it depends on all humans to make the most logical choice. This, paradoxically, is illogical to do. Again, what I claimed was pressing red isn’t neutral. I mean, the label literally says that if enough people press it you WILL kill people.

2

Anonymous OP 2w

And anyone who chose red chose it with the knowledge that people could choose blue, and that you’d be killing all those people

5

Anonymous #7 2w

Why is red accountable for their decision but blue is absolved from the responsibility of theirs?

5

Anonymous #7 2w

I mean blue “winning” just means both are the correct choice, red isn’t ever “wrong” unless you shame people for choosing it.

6

Anonymous #5 2w

it’s like squid games lol

1

Anonymous #7 2w

this is also the case for the single button scenario I gave though, isn’t it? even in that case there would be at least one person who presses it, and pressing it yourself helps their chances. Pressing a red button somehow feels like you’re more at fault for any blue button deaths than just not pressing a button at all, that’s the only difference.

1

Anonymous #8 2w

Or in a cleaner way to say it: You can either drink a glass of (red) water, or you can drink a glass of (blue) poison and if 75% choose the poison, I will give everyone the antidote

4

Anonymous #1 2w

lol that’s funny

0

Anonymous #7 2w

Yeah I’m with you. Obviously a LOT of people in the world are going to press the blue button and they do not deserve to die for processing the question the one normal tbh way. If we mostly just press the blue button then no one dies. The red button thing, people are gonna die. Not everyone in the world is gonna press the same button.

2

Anonymous OP 2w

I mean I think the problem for me is you need 100% of people to pick red for no one to die, and you only need 75% of people to pick blue for no one to die. Logically, not everyone is going to pick red, because it’s basically impossible for 100% of everyone to agree. So therefore, people should pick blue, because there’s a lower threshold for everyone surviving

3

Anonymous #5 2w

Except you know that not everyone is gonna press either one, so you’re at least killing someone

2

Anonymous OP 2w

It’s inevitable that some people will choose blue though

1

Anonymous #13 2w

Circular logic. Choose blue to save people who are at risk of dying because they chose blue to save those at risk of dying because they chose blue ... etc.

3

Anonymous OP 2w

Wait but how does this sound any better: “Choose red to kill people who are at risk of dying because they didn’t choose red”? It’s not a circular argument, but it is what you’re effectively doing

-1

Anonymous #7 2w

Red doesn't kill anyone. Blue is the button that kills people. Red are simply the ones who refuse to press the button that kills people.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

“If 25% of people pressed red, everyone who pressed blue dies” You can twist words all you want, but game theory-wise, you chose the option red with the explicit understanding that pressing it will ALWAYS save your own life while occasionally causing others to lose theirs We’re assuming every mentally capable adult is voting here. Surely you don’t believe the 75% of people who pressed blue are suicidal, right?

5

Anonymous #7 2w

Or, if they pressed blue, are they no longer mentally capable? But you deemed them mentally capable enough to vote You can’t say “one button is logical, the other isn’t” if a large portion of the population you deemed allowed to vote may press the illogical button

4

Anonymous #7 2w

Why would a mentally capable person pick blue if picking red is the only safe scenario? Wouldn't a mentally capable person realize that other mentally capable people would realize this, and assume that no other mentally capable people would choose blue?

3

Anonymous #8 2w

See, I actually love your statement because it shows how broken this logical loop is! And no I’m not insulting you lol. The fact that someone can effectively infinitely circle “who knows what, what’s the right option?” means that there IS NO “correct” button to select from a neutral perspective. There’s just a cooperative button (blue) and the game theory, self-preservation button (red) Thank you for this

1

Anonymous #7 2w

Cooperating to save each other from the unnecessary risk they collectively took to save each other from the unnecessary risk they took to save each other 😉

4

Anonymous OP 2w

Again, can you address my statement though? The question said that every mentally capable adult is voting here. If a mentally capable adult is capable of selecting blue, and blue is capable of leading to their death, then how can you deem that there’s a “correct” option that everyone should press? Because if you know people could fall into this circular logic fallacy, why would you press red to KILL all of the people who did fall into that fallacy? I don’t get your point, honestly.

1

Anonymous #7 2w

Your argument is that the majority should press red, but that’d lead to the minority that pressed blue to die. I just don’t get your point. People will press blue because they want to be cooperative, whether it’s a logical fallacy or not. Mentally capable adults are capable of falling into logical fallacies

1

Anonymous #7 2w

Just like ... don't press blue if you want to live. And don't press blue if you don't want others to feel like they also have to press blue. That's what fascinates me: people are so hell bent on doing the superficially right thing, they'll do the wrong thing just to get there.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Yes, but my point is that if you care about the survival of humans, you should consider the fact that humans don’t always make the most game theory-accurate choice. Again, that’s why I said there’s two paths: cooperation (logical fallacy-based or not) or game theory, self preservation. When you choose the game theory path, you acknowledge that your choice could lead to death. Philosophically, do those people deserve death for doing what they thought was right? I don’t think so personally

6

Anonymous #7 2w

"You can either jump off the bridge (blue) or just walk away (red). And if most people jump off bridge, your parachutes will activate." Like how is it not common sense.

3

Anonymous #7 2w

I care about the survival of humans. That's why I reject the seemingly obvious choice with potential catastrophic, unpredictable downside and advocate for a more measured approach with less or no downside while remaining skeptical of movements driven by fear and moral grandstanding.

1

Anonymous #8 2w

Yes, but if people aren’t aware that they’re jumping off a bridge, does that make them mentally incapable? I would argue no because these people had no intention of committing suicide. My point is that it can be common sense TO YOU, but you’re still making the choice to NOT active blues’ parachutes by pressing red.

1

Anonymous #7 2w

Like they made the choice to jump, but you made the choice to not save them

1

Anonymous #7 2w

You mean "made the choice to not jump also". You're forgetting the part where the people who need saving are the ones jumping.

1

Anonymous #7 2w

I mean...i personally would assume a mentally capable person would assess that the risk is unnecessary and not want to jump off the bridge but i guess that's more to the fault of the vagueness of the prompt and how it defines "mentally capable"

3

Anonymous OP 2w

But by your logic, they aren’t aware they’re jumping, right? Because they aren’t aware pressing blue is the “bad option” So my argument is, should they be killed for not understanding game theory? I’d argue no… no they shouldn’t.

1

Anonymous #8 2w

See but this’d require the definition of “mentally capable” to include understanding of game theory. Which not everyone understands game theory whether you like it or not.

1

Anonymous #7 2w

Clearly not. The i guess the real philosophy of the dilemma is "What is and isn't common sense?"

8

Anonymous #7 2w

It really doesn't have to go much further than "don't press the button that gambles your life". Not the craziest game theory. lol

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Yes, but I agree with #7. When you pose a question like this, and the “correct answer” depends on the group of people you deemed worthy to understand a specific concept, do the people have to understand that specific concept to be worthy? I’d argue they don’t, which brings a philosophical conundrum into what would’ve been a logic problem.

3

Anonymous #7 2w

And this philosophical conundrum is why my argument is: blue is what you choose to be cooperative red is what you choose to follow self-preservation logic My argument only holds because understanding game theory isn’t a requirement to be mentally capable

1

Anonymous #7 2w

I get your point and I do find it interesting. It actually speaks to precisely what I'm exploring with this type of problem - that human irrationality and desire to do right, be perceived as moral, fit in, etc., can lead to potentially horrible outcomes. That doesn't make anyone any less worthy of living, but it does shed light on a real problem of human psychology.

1

Anonymous #7 2w

Your point about people being irrational but still deserving of saving goes hand in hand with the question of how people's irrationality often causes the very problems they need to be saved from.

4

Anonymous #7 2w

Keep in mind that the blues are the ones creating the pressure on each other to press blue. It's not purely altruistic - it actually causes others to risk their lives unnecessarily.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

ALSO, like a LOT of people have to pick blue. 75% is a lot. What if it was 99% of people have to pick blue? Where is the line drawn? Is self preservation still seen as selfish to pick red in that scenario? If not, where is that line drawn?

6

Anonymous #8 2w

Exactly! That's why I upped it to 75% from the original 50%.

1

Anonymous #8 2w

I think you’re looking at it wrong. The kill threshold is controlled by red, and only 25% of ppl would have to choose red to meet that threshold. Basically, you’re betting that a little over 1/4 of the population isn’t “selfish” enough to pick red (in a self-preservation sense). Without the context of this poll’s results, that seems like gambling with life, no?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I actually picked red on your original 50% poll btw. I picked blue here to be more moral, but on your original poll red seemed like the better choice because the “kill threshold” was way higher, and less lives would be lost, too

6

Anonymous #7 2w

Yeah it's a total gamble to pick blue, and i feel like even the participants know that. Therefore it just makes sense to pick red to be safe. As the blue threshold increases, the risk also increases but probably more exponentially rather than linearly. I just wonder at what point do most people decide the unnecessary risk is too much.

3

Anonymous #7 2w

I feel like you're framing it as "the default is blue but some people will jump ship if they get scared." But logically the default would be red because that guarantees everyone's safety, and picking blue reveals the circular logic of "okay how many people do i think would also pick blue in order to save the people who pick blue plus the people who were 'tricked by fallacy'(?)".

2

Anonymous #8 2w

No I’m actually not framing it as that. My framing is that there is no default philosophically-speaking. blue is what you choose if you’re cooperative, and either don’t understand game theory or believe others wouldn’t understand game theory, and you don’t want those others to die red is what you choose if you use pure self-preservation/game theory logic, or maybe you believe everyone else will use that logic, too

1

Anonymous #7 2w

My point is that I agree with the philosophical stance of blue—I don’t believe in the human population enough to where EVERYONE will pick red, and I don’t want to be responsible for loss of life. So I want to add more to blue’s total to try and prevent that loss of life. But my personal stance is just me showing my opinion in a philosophical debate. I’m not trying to mix words or framings around

5