211–220 of 333 posts
This question has multiple layers of thinking: 1. People who can't read pick randomly. 2. People who can read, but are too dumb to model or care about other people pick red. 3. People with enough intelligence for basic cognitive empathy pick blue. 4. People a little smarter and think through game theory overall pick red, and think they are smart for doing so. 5. People smarter than #4 and capable of seeing the big pi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this repeated or one time? I think it's meant to be one time. > Seems difficult to guarantee you don't kill a bunch of kids each button press cycle... Seems extremely easy to guarantee that I don't kill a bunch of kids, just press blue. It's only the red-pressers who might end up murdering kids. By pressing blue the only person I am putting at risk is myself.
If someone has parents and kids themselves should they convince them to press blue as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but why would anybody choose blue? there is no moral benefit to doing so. Why? To contribute saving the others who chose blue. How isn't that moral?
If everyone picks red everyone lives, nobody needs saving by picking blue. Picking blue obliges others to pick blue to prevent your death, risking their own life in turn. Red is the moral option.
That isn't to say I categorically judge anyone who would choose red.
If there's good reason to believe a majority and especially a supermajority would choose red over blue, then choosing red is indeed the only rational choice, and convincing overs to do the same is the only way to save lives.
What I like about the question is that it can be used to measure whether a society is low trust (majority red) or high trust (majority blue).
However, where I take issue with the article is the assertion that it's impossible to get a blue majority, especially in the face of polling that suggests such a majority already exists. The article's claim that choosing red is the only moral choice seems at best to be self-delusion.
The utility of choosing red and the morality of convincing others to follow suit maximizes the larger the currently expected pool of red gets, sure. However, while choosing blue has less and less personal downside the greater the expected majority of blue there is, similar to red, the morality of choosing blue maximizes the closer you get to an even split, since it's the product of the potential lives saved by going blue and the likelihood your individual vote will push it over the edge.
Personally, I'd choose blue. I'd rather sacrifice myself than be party to the deaths of billions of people, so if there's even some hope at convincing the majority to go blue, I'd feel obligated to stay with it even if pre-polling suggests things initially tip toward red. I'd also be a bit wary of living in a society now devoid of anyone willing to self-sacrifice. I'm not convinced most people choosing red give that any thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course the framing affects how people vote. The thought experiment demands we use the framing as given. Some people might reason themselves into your analogy, others won’t.
So is your general take on the problem that because the way it's worded (blue => "everyone survives", red => "only those who press red survive"), enough people would choose blue that therefore the empathetic/moral thing to do would be to also choose blue to save them? I can get on board with that line of reasoning
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The end of the article mentions it. Some people are not purely rational decision makers, some people are altruists who know others are not purely rational, etc. By choosing red you will kill some people.
Or choosing blue allows them to feel self-righteous while not actually at any risk since this isn't real. Virtue signalling is the ethic of our day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why would those pick blue? They have the same incentive to just pick red.
I wonder if red choosers really don’t understand that they are choosing to live in a world where half of all people, the more selfless half, are dead. It’s like living through a nuclear war except all of the nice people are gone, not just a random sample
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically for red to win the number of dead people will be between 0% and 49.999% of the population. The entire reason to campaign for red is to reduce the dead percentage.
If your goal is to reduce the number of dead, is red really the one to campaign for?
Voting blue is voting to possibly die, either because you want death or in risky solidarity with others who voted to possibly die, who may have chosen by mistake. Voting red is voting for those interested in death to die, along with those who chose blue by mistake, and along with anybody who voted blue in support of those who voted blue by mistake.
So we can have a blue campaign that says "we must not allow even one voter to die, we must all pull together and vote blue", and a red campaign that says "please don't be a giant crowd of idiots who risk death, just accept that maybe two voters aren't going to make it because one was depressed and the other had an involuntary hand movement, and everybody else play it safe and vote red".
This is a ridiculous situation, and Jonathan Swift unfortunately died in 1745, so the best commentary I can offer is "I don't know".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why would those pick blue? They have the same incentive to just pick red.
I wonder if red choosers really don’t understand that they are choosing to live in a world where half of all people, the more selfless half, are dead. It’s like living through a nuclear war except all of the nice people are gone, not just a random sample
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will always be someone who chooses blue. Choosing red is choosing to kill them.
I fail to see how anyone could choose blue, the certain scenario is everyone chooses red, and this whole post is a nothingburger.