Button Poll #2: Only those with normal cognitive capacity are given buttons.

[Thermal]

Let me be clear: I think it's morally laudable to try to save people from themselves. I don't think it's morally obligatory.

Let me be clear: the choice you pose is "join us with a gun or we will shoot you". Doesn't sound so morally innocent anymore, does it?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It does not. I haven't voted to kill others.

Of course you have. That is exactly the red button's campaign promise: vote for me, and I'll kill all the blues, but spare you. And unlike with a human candidate, fulfilling those promises is automatic in this scenario, so you don't get to pretend to think that they won't really do it if they win.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How far does your principle extend?

There's a trolley coming down the hill. There's nothing in the way, nobody is tied to the tracks. There's a group of 1000 people standing on the platform and you're one of them. Everyone on the platform is an adult with normal cognitive ability.

If at least 501 people voluntarily jump onto the tracks, they'll be able to stop the trolley and nobody will get hurt. If 500 or fewer people voluntarily jump onto the tracks, the trolley won't be stopped, and everyone on the tracks will die.

Are you going to be the first to jump onto the tracks? Will you be the 200th? If you choose not to jump onto the tracks, do you consider yourself a monster?

A, I was wondering when it would become clear to you that this is just another trolley problem, i.e. a way for people to feel smug about having found a reason when it would be okay for them to kill someone.

You try to frame it as if everyone will die if you do NOTHING.
But the Red Button is actually releasing a trolley down the tracks, and only when enough people press Blue will it be stopped. If everyone presses Blue, the trolley never moves.

As with the Button, the Trolley depends on a massive Information Dump that has to be taken as fact, and you are given only a Binary Choice.

This alone makes them capital E Evil in my opinion, as False Dichotomy is how every bad thing is sold to people (do you want Open Borders or tougher immigration enforcement?)

Life is not like that, and it is bad, bad, bad to force people to make a "lesser evil" decision when you should be jointly looking for a better way, at least to postpone or alleviate bad consequences.

With the Button as with the Trolley, whoever caused these events to happen is guilty of attempted or actual murder, and what you, an unqualified bystander, are doing is acting in panic with insufficient information or ability.
(seriously? a guy heavy enough to stop a moving trolley, and I can just throw him off a bridge? I would never ever think that that could, even in theory, work unless some Evil Experimenter has put the thought in my head and made me strong enough to do it).

You could say that it's not premeditated murder to press Red if you, as you have demonstrated, do not actually understand the consequences of doing so.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just for ◊◊◊◊◊ and giggles, let's think how the Red/Blue Button thing would REALLY play out.

We would see viral media posts along the lines of:

"Dear People thinking of pressing the Red Button: before you do, please consider this:
I am a Genetic Virologist with access to a full laboratory and extremely contagious and lethal pathogens. I have placed dispersal units with the nasties viruses you could think of at major transport intersections in the biggest cities in the world. They are rigged with a Dead Man Switch.
I have just pressed Blue, and if you think you can save yourself by pressing Red, you have another thing coming - if you kill me with your choice, I am going to take you with me.
Thanks for you attention in this matter."

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Just for ◊◊◊◊◊ and giggles, let's think how the Red/Blue Button thing would REALLY play out.

We would see viral media posts along the lines of:

"Dear People thinking of pressing the Red Button: before you do, please consider this:
I am a Genetic Virologist with access to a full laboratory and extremely contagious and lethal pathogens. I have placed dispersal units with the nasties viruses you could think of at major transport intersections in the biggest cities in the world. They are rigged with a Dead Man Switch.
I have just pressed Blue, and if you think you can save yourself by pressing Red, you have another thing coming - if you kill me with your choice, I am going to take you with me.
Thanks for you attention in this matter."

I suspect we'd be seeing things like:
"How to survive the red button apocalypse using this one weird trick" or:
"Stop paying for blue buttons! Improve your sex life with all-natural voting options" or:
"Save money on an extended warranty for your buttons" or:
"Hot singles in your area want you to push their buttons."

 

[Darat]

This is the whole ball o' wax. You are reframing it as "in case" someone votes Blue. Thats ridiculous. You know goddamned right well that some WILL push Blue, from interacting with posters in this very discussion. It's not a "possibility" or coin flip. It is a CERTAINTY. Dead certain, 100%. But you smoke-and-mirror it like it is some off theoretical chance, that the Blue voter is foolish to take. That is not the case, and you know it full and well.

You are voting to send Darat, myself, Guybrush Threepwood, and countless others to DIE. That is the flip side to your vote, and you can't wish that away with reframing to scenarios where the Red vote is entirely passive. It is not. It votes to kill others.

My first comment about this was that I was surprised at my own choice. I didn't even say what the choice was that I was surprised about.

My choice was to press the blue button. That choice could be seen as entirely selfish as I could not live with myself if I pressed red and a huge proportion of the human race was killed as a result of my choice. Perhaps that will help someone who is is a declared redder be happy with my choice, they can view it as being a selfish "I'm alright Jack" decision.

 

[Rolfe]

Darat, that's literally what compassion IS. Feeling someone else's pain so strongly that you can't stand not to do something about it.

I think it's entirely misplaced in this situation, but I just thought I'd mention it.

 

[Rolfe]

you have another thing coming

Another  THINK coming.

Grrrrr.

 

[Thermal]

Another  THINK coming.

Grrrrr.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't care how common a mistake is, or indeed if someone has used it ironically, it's still a mistake.

 

[Thermal]

The only mistake is thinking it's not correct in the 21st century.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm voting blue, but my strategy has changed. I actually want red to win. That way, I don't have to see any more variations of more of this thread showing up.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I don't care how common a mistake is, or indeed if someone has used it ironically, it's still a mistake.

The only reason I've seen for thinking it's a mistake is that it's not a guaranteed win for the person casting the vote. That is hardly the only consideration we have to consider.

 

[Thermal]

My first comment about this was that I was surprised at my own choice. I didn't even say what the choice was that I was surprised about.

My choice was to press the blue button. That choice could be seen as entirely selfish as I could not live with myself if I pressed red and a huge proportion of the human race was killed as a result of my choice. Perhaps that will help someone who is is a declared redder be happy with my choice, they can view it as being a selfish "I'm alright Jack" decision.

That's a really good topical point. Your vote might be self interested, but your self interests are more moral. You don't want to be a ghoul, and Reds don't mind.

Like, I vote Blue in no small part because those I love will vote Blue, and their interests are mine. I mean, you have no idea how much money I have invested in them.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not glossing over it. Others only have to pay that price if they don't avoid the obvious and unecessary risk.

Nobody actually has to pay that price. They're volunteering for it.

Yes, you keep saying the same thing: "if everyone thought like me it would all be fine".

The problem is, those who think like you are firing guns into a field of Blues, and we don't even know how many Blues there will be, except we are certain that it is more than zero.

At that point, we all know the Red vote will kill others, if it prevails. So the dilemma becomes "will you be part of the killing, or try to stop it?"

I know you will fight mightily against that framework, accurate though it is. Maybe it's good time to ask yourself why?

 

[Thermal]

Let me offer up a variant for you to confirm your stance.

Only cognitively competent adults (everyone is able to understand the options, and everyone is able to understand that there is no risk to red, and some risk with blue) are involved... and the threshold for all blues living is 95%. Are you still dedicated to blue?

You're doing it again. Now you propose an entirely different premise, while poised to pounce with a 'gotcha' if my response is also entirely different.

Had you been paying attention, I already said multiple times that in a different scenario, I would go differently (as with three people instead of the planet).

Also, you seem to be on the arc where you keep making changes till everyone votes Red, then presumably argue that 'Wasn't Red the smart choice all along?", possibly peppered with "why do you make such a huge distinction between 75.483% Blue and 75.484%?"

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have. Here, I'll do it again, so you can ignore it again:

The trolley reframing makes Red a null vote. They ain't doin nuffin, just standing on the platform minding dey business. This does not compare to the Red button, which has the actual effect of killing the Blues (that you keep trying to sweep under the rug). "Just not jumping on the tracks" is the equivalent of not registering a vote, which is not an option in the scenario posed.

You are enamored of the trolley analogy because it shifts blame away from your actions. So let's try another reframing that accounts for what a Red vote actually does:

There is a bulletproof barrier laying flat in a field, with Red grass on one side of it and Blue on the other. You have two choices- get on the Red side, and be handed a gun, with which you shoot any Blues if your side reaches 51%. The Blues can only lift that barrier and stop the bullets if they reach 51%. If they do not get 51%, the barrier stays down and they are shot dead by the Reds.

There. That actually reflects both sides of both votes, the individual and collective effects. Blue still needs 51% for no deaths, and Red still needs 100% for no deaths. You still get your wish that it is Blue's fault if he tries to join in to raise the barrier, but now you have to accept that your action carries a collective (and aggressive) effect. Many voters will simply not be able to stomach the idea of shooting into a field of Blues, whether 49% or 1%, who only put themselves at risk to stop these ghoulish Reds from firing at anybody. You are still right that if 100% of people thought like you, you would be opening fire into an empty field. Same for Blue- at 51% no one kills anyone on either side.

I'm still going Blue, and for exactly the same reasons. How about you, now that the collective consequence of your vote is no longer hidden?

That is an absurd and not even remotely analogous scenario. At no point whatsoever are reds actually killing anyone at all. Never, not once. Blues are volunteering for risk, with the understanding that if enough people also take the risk they will live, but if not enough people take the risk they'll die. Red is not taking any risk, nor are they forcing blues to take risk, nor are they killing blues in any way.

But okay, I'll entertain your "pushing a button to take no risk is an activity, whereas not taking a step is not an activity" notion.

1000 people are standing on a trolley platform, and a trolley is coming toward them at full speed with no brakes. There's nobody downtrack of the trolley that will be hurt if the trolley goes whistling past, nobody is at risk in any fashion at all. All 1000 people on the platform have normally functioning brains, and can understand the options, the risks, and the trade-offs involved.

In 3 seconds, the foremost foot of the platform will disappear. Each of the 1000 people can either take one step forward onto the tracks, or they can take one step backwards off of the tracks. If 501 people step onto the tracks, their combined strength will stop the trolley with nobody being injured or killed. But if 500 or fewer step onto the tracks, the trolley will run over everyone on the tracks and they'll all die.

You are one of those 1000 people. Do you take a step forward onto the tracks, or backward to the safety of the platform?

That's literally analogous to the scenario. You have to choose to do one of two things, there's no null option. One choice has no risk at all. The other choice introduces voluntary risk with a 50/50 chance of survival.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let me be clear: the choice you pose is "join us with a gun or we will shoot you". Doesn't sound so morally innocent anymore, does it?

That is not at all what the choice is. Your framing is exceptionally bad faith and inaccurate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course you have. That is exactly the red button's campaign promise: vote for me, and I'll kill all the blues, but spare you.

By your logic, you are currently a killer. You get that don't you?

Your moral framework requires that everyone take direct action even if it places themselves and others at risk, on the chance that their action might save someone who voluntarily choose to face danger. Your moral frameworks proclaims that the 90 year old on the side of the river is a killer if they don't jump into the flood to try to save the 17 year old trying to surf the surge. Do you actually think the 90 year old is a killer?

And unlike with a human candidate, fulfilling those promises is automatic in this scenario, so you don't get to pretend to think that they won't really do it if they win.

Why do you think this is a competition where one side is a winner and the other side is a loser? I personally think that the optimal distribution is between 55% and 65% blue, but I don't think the reds are bad for not courting death with the hope that other people will save them from their own gamble.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A, I was wondering when it would become clear to you that this is just another trolley problem, i.e. a way for people to feel smug about having found a reason when it would be okay for them to kill someone.

It's always been a modified trolley problem. There's no smugness involved, and nobody is killing other people.

You try to frame it as if everyone will die if you do NOTHING.
But the Red Button is actually releasing a trolley down the tracks, and only when enough people press Blue will it be stopped. If everyone presses Blue, the trolley never moves.

No, the red button doesn't release a trolley. The red button does nothing at all except decide NOT to take an avoidable risk.

As with the Button, the Trolley depends on a massive Information Dump that has to be taken as fact, and you are given only a Binary Choice.

This alone makes them capital E Evil in my opinion, as False Dichotomy is how every bad thing is sold to people (do you want Open Borders or tougher immigration enforcement?)

Life is not like that, and it is bad, bad, bad to force people to make a "lesser evil" decision when you should be jointly looking for a better way, at least to postpone or alleviate bad consequences.

It's a thought experiment. Of course real life isn't like that. Did you somehow think anyone mistook it for such?

With the Button as with the Trolley, whoever caused these events to happen is guilty of attempted or actual murder, and what you, an unqualified bystander, are doing is acting in panic with insufficient information or ability.
(seriously? a guy heavy enough to stop a moving trolley, and I can just throw him off a bridge? I would never ever think that that could, even in theory, work unless some Evil Experimenter has put the thought in my head and made me strong enough to do it).

You could say that it's not premeditated murder to press Red if you, as you have demonstrated, do not actually understand the consequences of doing so.

The first person to press blue is intentionally placing themselves at risk, when that risk can be entirely avoided. They're gambling - and they're gambling on the fact that enough other people want them to live that strangers will also gamble in order to save them from themselves.