251–260 of 333 posts
if everyone were rational, and knew everyone else would act rationally, then obvious answer is to pick red, because everyone would pick red, and hence everyone would survive.
Silly. Everyone will press the red button and everyone will survive.
Blue: if >= 50% pressed, they survive, othervise die.
Red: random 50% survival chance, independent for every Red.
The only reason to pick blue is to try to do the "morally correct" thing to "save" the other people who picked blue. If you're the first person in line to vote, picking blue is neither logical nor moral. There are no other blue choosers who you need to support. "But there will be people who vote after me" well that's their decision to make. "People will vote randomly" okay well if they can't take living or dying seri…
Hello, Blue Presser here. We learn something about humanity based on the results of the poll. It's naive to think that 100% of people will press the red button. Some people will die if red wins. I think pressing red is selfish and violent, in that it can result in the death of human life by their own unwillingness to cooperate. If we are not willing to work together in order to protect each other then I have a very p…
Does that mean that in rayiner's phrasing [1], you'd argue for "cooperating" with the other head shooters? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47913066
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone has parents and kids themselves should they convince them to press blue as well?
I'd say so, I think encouraging your family to act morally (not murder people) is a good thing.
I believe some would choose blue: out of a desire to help others or as a mistake (they meant to push red but accidentally pushed blue).
I do not view those who would choose to press blue as bad people, or as "stupid".
Likewise, I do not view those who press red as selfish or immoral.
I am bothered by comments in this thread which say that choosing blue, or choosing red, is the only moral choice. I believe that is wrong; as stated, I don't believe choosing red or choosing blue is immoral. I do believe it is immoral to consider someone who pushes the color other than the one you choose to be immoral or stupid.
I am similarly concerned about those who claim that choosing blue would be "stupid". I think it is mean-spirited, if not outright wrong, to say someone choosing blue is "stupid".
Likewise, I am bothered by comments in this thread which claim that choosing red is choosing to kill someone. To my mind, this is objectively and demonstrably false. When I choose red, that alone does not kill someone. Someone is only killed if I choose red and that person chooses blue. If you think I killed someone by choosing red, I am curious (genuinely) why you think a person choosing blue, out of their own free will and being sound of mind, is any less guilty than I am? After all, they are potentially choosing to kill someone: themselves.
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.
Bringing rationalism - or whatever - clouds the discussion. Blue is purely a win-win for me, so it's rational to only choose blue. Reds have their own value judgement. "Rationality" is a useless quality to debate here.
Dying is a win for you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but why would anybody choose blue? there is no moral benefit to doing so. If you altered the game to say that only some fraction of the population get the choice, and everyone who doesn't get the choice is assumed blue (or, is killed if less than 50% of voters choose blue) then there's some question to be explored here. But at it stands there is literally no reason to choose blue.
You're thinking of this like a game where the only point is to "win". That's not how this would actually work in practice. Blue is the only moral and logical choice. If red gets over 50% and you picked it, therefore contributing to the "red" outcome, you are now effectively a murderer. Plus you now get to live in a world where everyone else alive are sociopaths that picked red, where everyone with a conscience is now…
Anyone who picked blue gambled their own lives over nothing. There is nothing altruistic about pressing the blue button and especially nothing altruistic about trying to convince people to press the blue button. The altruistic thing is to convince everyone that they don't need to kill themselves by pressing the blue button.