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

[Emily's Cat]

Had you remotely been paying attention, I stopped doing so once you indicated it upset you. Since then, I've been dealing strictly with your arguments and their various shortcomings, while you get progressively more personal and insulting.

Had you remotely been paying attention, you'd have stopped calling red pushers killers, cowards, and selfish, and assigning malicious motivations to them in the last thread rather than 22 pages into this one, after I had REPEATEDLY expressed that it was unacecptable and innappropriate.

You didn't back off until AFTER you felt insulted.

I understand it, as I demonstrated clearly. I don't think very highly of it, nor am I likely to unless you change it. Do you now think bullying me into respecting your position is the move? Kinda ironic.

Not offended in the slightest. Why would you think that? Is it in the script? I keep trying to tell you, no one is following the script. You should really resign yourself to that.

I think you were offended because you said you were insulted by my observation that your choice has emotions involved in it.

And I've gone to great lengths to explain that my position is motivated by the practical. I guess you forgot to read the posts, though?

It's motivated by the practical view of nobody should die, even if they directly caused the risk to themselves with full and complete knowledge of the risks they're taking on. f

That's a lie. You said nothing about me or anyone else having emotions. You just cooked up in your head that it my argument was emotionally driven (let me guess- it was in the script?).

Um, are you getting wound up about a technicality? I said you came to a different conclusion because emotions. Do you deny that you have emotions? Or do you deny that desiring everyone to live is an emotion?

Again: you forgot to read the posts and take note that I stopped when you said it upset you.

Again: you didn't actually, you kept on for 20+ pages into an entirely different thread.

Probably best to just give it a rest. I've made my case, rebutted yours, and you continue to ignore the ◊◊◊◊ out of everything posted in favor of this script you are determined to follow. C ya on the next one.

Dude, what's up with this "script" ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊? It implies that I'm not capable of making my own arguments, that I'm being driven by someone else. That's horse ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You mean just here on the ISF?

No, the others I've found mentioned elsewhere too.

Granted... I am likely to only find those in languages I speak

That said, I still think it's erroneous to assume that the core social value of sacrifice to benefit others is universal among all humans. I think it's a learned value, not something innate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Another thing I want to remind people of is that the OP does not specify what happens if exactly 50% vote blue. Emily's Cat has claimed that means the red outcome goes into effect, but rereading the OP does not support this. The OP only specifies what happens if <50% vote blue or if >50% vote blue. Suggesting otherwise seems to be part of an attempt to construct red as a default outcome, rather than one that requires action on the part of red button-pushers to enact.

It was intended to be >50% and <=50%. But I'll give you this. If it's exactly perfectly split... then you choose the outcome.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I really do get a kick out of the argumentation here:

Blue means Everyone Survives.

It doesn't mean everyone survives. In half of the possible scenarios blues all die.

Red means ONLY Red Survives

Red doesn't mean ONLY red survives. In half of all possible scenarios, everyone survives.

*pushes red* "I didn't just vote to kill you. You committed suicide by voting for *checks notes* Everyone Survives".

I didn't kill you. You knowingly took a risk that you were fully cognizant could result in your death. I played no role in your choice to risk your life.

Game theory holds that Red is indeed the individual's best bet out of self interests, but the flip side is that you vote to kill others. Red voters cant face that, so they say "Everybody is free to think exactly like me and everything would be fine". They don't seem to understand that applies to Blue voting to. Except that Blue voting only needs 51% to avoid horrors and Red needs 100%.

It's surreal, in a macabre way.

Tell me again how you stopped saying reds were killers when I told you I disliked it? Even though reds have no hand at all in the voluntary choice of blues to risk their lives?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I would press things further and point out that, even if 100% somehow vote red, they are still implicated in the morally repugnant decision to condition survival on voting red. If I walk into a room full of people and declare: "Here are two buttons; only people who press the red button get to leave this room alive" it's still morally vile if everybody presses red and no one ends up dying.

How the hell is it morally repugnant to choose not to die?

If you want to place moral responsibility on the shoulders of the imaginary button gods, sure, go ahead. But I fail to see any rational argument by which 100% of people choosing not to risk death is morally repugnant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I finally googled this a little, and it seems the divide we have ITT is common. They even have cool names for them: Red voters favor the Nash Equalibrium, which is about strict self interest. Blues favor the Pareto Optimal Outcome, which is the one that does the least amount of damage overall.

I get where you're coming from, but it's not applicable.

Nash Equilibrium is when no participant could benefit more from a different strategy. It implicitly allows that the benefits aren't necessarily maximized, nor are they the same for all participants - it's equilibrium not equality. But to achieve Nash Equilibrium, it has to hold true for ALL participants, not just some of them. In this case, I don't think it holds. It's true that for those who press red, they cannot benefit more from the strategy of pressing blue; it's not true that for those who press blue they could not benefit more from the strategy of pressing red - in at least some outcomes, blues could absolutely benefit more from a different strategy.

Similarly, Pareto Optimal Outcome occurs when it's impossible to make any individual participant better off without making a different participant worse off. Again, that doesn't really apply here. There's a wide range of possible outcomes where shifting a single participant doesn't result in anyone being better or worse. There's also a wide range where changing the selection of some people make those people better off without making anyone at all worse off.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The red button rationales on offer in this thread are not only selfish, but also strongly risk-averse. Self-interest in itself does not entail risk aversion. Financial speculators are often quite selfish, yet they take significant risks in pursuit of outsized rewards (for themselves). One could, as you point out, press blue for purely selfish reasons, such as keeping the lights on and getting to see your kids graduate (which you might not if they press blue and you don't).

ETA: or not having your financial investments tank.

I think it's much more accurate to say the red button rationale is not necessarily selfish, but is strongly risk averse.

I don't think it's selfish to decline to take an obvious and completely avoidable risk that every single person is fully capable of avoiding. Nobody needs to swallow the poison at all.

I also don't think it's selfless to take avoidable risks on the expectation that lots of other people will take those same risks with you. To some extent, I think it shifts accountability onto others and obligates them to save you from your self.

 

[GlennB]

I think it's much more accurate to say the red button rationale is not necessarily selfish, but is strongly risk averse.

I don't think it's selfish to decline to take an obvious and completely avoidable risk that every single person is fully capable of avoiding. Nobody needs to swallow the poison at all.

I also don't think it's selfless to take avoidable risks on the expectation that lots of other people will take those same risks with you. To some extent, I think it shifts accountability onto others and obligates them to save you from your self.

Amen. Sums it up for me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And I disagree with your reasoning.

You say the blue button is fatal by default; I disagree. The blue button is not fatal by definition UNLESS a specific threshold is met. Only beyond that threshold does blue transform to be fatal.

Blue only becomes fatal after and if a majority of people push red. It is absolutely non-fatal up until that point.

All of your other examples use the opposite framing; they are all based on a choice between {always safe} and {fatal unless a lot of people do it}. How about instead doing the opposite? Try picturing it as forcing everyone to move to stand either on a trap door, or a platform that may operate the trap door. Then it's {if more than 50% of people move to stand on the trap door, the door is not triggered and everyone remains safe} vs {if more than 50% of people move to stand on the platform that operates the lever that opens the trap door, the trap door will open and anyone who was standing on it will be killed}.

If you know there's a chance that the trap door could open and drop you to instant death... why would you stand on the trap door?

Look, I get that you personally would stand on the trap door so that you can help save the other people who are standing on the trap door. I understand that, and it's motivation.

What I'm asking is for you to extend your theory of mind, as well as your concept of accountability. If everyone knows that there's potentialy death under the trap door... and everyone is capable of understanding that there's potential death under the trap door... for what good reason would anyone stand on the trap door in the first place?

What is the reasoning of the first person who sets foot on the trap door?

To me, it's as if you've got two groups of people here. One group says "Hey, don't stand on the trap door, you could die". The other group says "Well, if enough of us stand on the trap door we won't die. And if not enough of us stand on the trap door then you're a killer for not standing on the trap door!"

The first person who steps on that trap door has voluntarily placed themselves in danger, while simultaneously trying to blame everyone else for the consequences of their own choice.

Blue is non-fatal until the votes are counted and the tally is over 50% red; it remains non-fatal unless a lot of people push red.
Standing on the trap door is not fatal as soon as someone hops on there; it remains non-fatal unless a lot of people join in to operate the trap door's lever by sheer mass.

The risk is fully and completely disclosed to you up front. It's not a surprise - you know from the get go that pushing red means anyone and everyone who pushed blue is now at risk of dying. The default on blue is life for everyone... and you have to overcome a barrier to prevent the outcome of life for everyone.

All of the people who stand on the trap door know from the get go that they might die, and they did it anyway. Why is it the responsibility of everyone else to save them from their own fully-informed choices?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

How the hell is it morally repugnant to choose not to die?

If you want to place moral responsibility on the shoulders of the imaginary button gods, sure, go ahead. But I fail to see any rational argument by which 100% of people choosing not to risk death is morally repugnant.

I have already explained my reasoning. "Only the red survive" is a proposal that, if enacted, conditions survival on pushing the "right" button. That is what is morally repugnant, and by pressing red, regardless of your personal motives, you vote to enact that rule. It didn't exist before. I don't currently see people dropping dead after pushing blue buttons, do you?

I have my own notes for the button gods, but all they did was present the red option. It doesn't go into effect unless at least 50% press red. And the responsibility for that happening, if it does, lies squarely with those who press red.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To go into more detail and less snark:

You were trying to suggest that there was something significant about the fact that a blue result (i.e., everyone survives) doesn't go into effect unless more than 50% vote for it. No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock! That's how voting works in a two-way race with no opt-out works.

My point was that this is no different than for a red result (i.e., only the red survive), which also does not go into effect unless more than 50% vote for it. This cannot be used as an argument that red is some sort of default outcome.

That's why I object to your revised labels. The reds survive no matter what the outcome is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

100% of people vote red. Pretty sure everybody understands this by now.

That doesn't make the blue button true - nobody pushed the button that says "everybody survives".

In ALL scenarios, one of your labels is false.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

That's why I object to your revised labels. The reds survive no matter what the outcome is.

My labels do not suggest otherwise, so I don't understand the objection.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

That doesn't make the blue button true - nobody pushed the button that says "everybody survives".

In ALL scenarios, one of your labels is false.

Everybody pushed the red button. So in that particular case, "everybody" and "only the red" are coextensive. The labels are still true, and indicate the correct outcome. It is still true that only the red survive.

 

[Thermal]

Every single blue pusher has voluntarily put themselves in harm's way, on purpose, with intention, knowing the risks. There are no victims.

That's right, I keep forgetting- people who vite for Everyone Survives are obviously suicides.

Generrally, no, I'm not expressing contempt for you for your choice.

The ◊◊◊◊ you're not.

I'm not assigning malice to your motivations,

How could you possibly assign malice to a vote of Everyone Survives? You're being ridiculous.

nor am I trying to bully or shame you into changing your vote.

The ◊◊◊◊ you're not.

I am, however, trying to convince you that calling red pushers killers, cowards, and selfish is counterproductive and I'd like you to stop. I'd like you to

I believe we just went over that? Did you forget to read the posts you are responding to?

It's conceit on your part. You believe that you are better at thinking this through, because you came to a different conclusion. I disagree.

You and others described your thought processes. They are a drawn out version of what most of us saw partway through the first OP. We have, inarguably, thought it through farther. Hell, you still haven't come up with an answer for any of the challenges and questions I posed. Blue voters have all thought it through beyond covering our own asses.

If this scenario involved innocents who didn't know any better, I'd say you had thought more broadly. But since there aren't any innocents, and every single person pushing the blue button is doing so intentionally and with the full and complete awareness that they're voluntarily placing themselves at risk of death when there is a completely safe option available... well... I disagree that you've "thought through farther".

Yes. We went farther then covering our own asses.

Oh, and please feel free to shove your 'completely safe alternative' up your ass. Voting for others to die is not a completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ safe alternative. It is the riskiest vote (Mad Max World) and the worst.

Let me ask you a general question. If a person intentionally does something that they completely know and understand to be dangerous, and when they have an easily available safe alternative available that is equally accessible... are they responsible for the consequences of their own choice?

Probably (i can think of several exceptions).. Nothing to do with the question at hand, which doesn't offer a 'completely safe alternative'. It offers the choice to kill others.

You can't keep denying what you are voting for, spelled out on the instructions. "ONLY Reds Survive". That's your vote, without smoke and mirrors.

Eta: and I'm out. I just read another one of your replies and you are getting completely ridiculous in this effort to deny what "ONLY Rex Survives' means.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have already explained my reasoning. "Only the red survive" is a proposal that, if enacted, conditions survival on pushing the "right" button. That is what is morally repugnant, and by pressing red, regardless of your personal motives, you vote to enact that rule. It didn't exist before. I don't currently see people dropping dead after pushing blue buttons, do you?

I have my own notes for the button gods, but all they did was present the red option. It doesn't go into effect unless at least 50% press red. And the responsibility for that happening, if it does, lies squarely with those who press red.

I'm sorry if this offends you... but it's an incredibly ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up moral framework where people can only be good if they intentionally court death and blame others for the risk that they have chosen to take.

It begins to approach the logic of abusers, "look what you made me do".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Everybody pushed the red button. So in that particular case, "everybody" and "only the red" are coextensive. The labels are still true, and indicate the correct outcome. It is still true that only the red survive.

Okay, fine. The only possible scenario in which your labels aren't outright lies is when every single person picks red. In all other scenarios, one or the other of your buttons is a liar.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I'm sorry if this offends you... but it's an incredibly ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up moral framework where people can only be good if they intentionally court death and blame others for the risk that they have chosen to take.

A person who cannot acknowledge that voting to condition survival on pressing the right button is morally repugnant has ideas about what is and is not a messed up moral framework. I shall give those ideas the consideration they deserve.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Okay, fine. The only possible scenario in which your labels aren't outright lies is when every single person picks red. In all other scenarios, one or the other of your buttons is a liar.

My labels are accurate. You have not made a cogent argument otherwise, and all the arguments you have presented to date look more like simple errors in logic and reading comprehension.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's right, I keep forgetting- people who vite for Everyone Survives are obviously suicides.

The ◊◊◊◊ you're not.

How could you possibly assign malice to a vote of Everyone Survives? You're being ridiculous.

I don't assign malice to you. I do, however note that the button is NOT "everyone survives". That's not true, it's a false representation. The button is "maybe die, maybe live". More specifically, it's "die unless a bunch of other people save you from your own choice"

Oh, and please feel free to shove your 'completely safe alternative' up your ass. Voting for others to die is not a completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ safe alternative. It is the riskiest vote (.ad Max World) and the worst.

It is not voting for others to die. Please take your own proferred advice. And also, tell me again how you totally and completely stopped telling me I'm a killer?

YOU voted for potential death. I didn't make you push that button. I have no control over your choices - you have complete agency over your choices, and you are completely accountable for the outcome. In this case, it worked out just fine for you... but you're still blaming me somehow for the choice that you made of your own free will.

Probably (i can think of several exceptions).. Nothing to do with the question at hand, which doesn't offer a 'completely safe alternative'. It offers the choice to kill others.

Nobody is making you push the blue button. You made that choice all by yourself. Why am I responsible for your choice?

You can't keep denying what you are voting for, spelled out on the instructions. "ONLY Reds Survive". That's your vote, without smoke and mirrors.

For all of your insistence on how well you've thought this through... you're extremely anchored to an emotional trigger.

Framing 1: You have two wells, and everyone has to collectively empty whichever well they select. If less than half the people choose the green well, then the poison ingested will surpass the lethal dose, and only the people who drank from the orange well will survive. If more than half the people choose the green well, then the dose will be low enough that everyone will survive.​

​

Framing 2: You have two wells, and everyone has to collectively empty whichever well they select. The orange well has no poison and no risk. The green well contains poison of such strength that in order to avoid a lethal dose, it needs to be spread among more than half of the people.​

What's the functional difference between those two scenarios, as opposed to the framing difference? Are they logically distinct in terms of the risk and the range of outcomes that can occur?

Framing 1: You have two buttons, and everyone has to push one. If less than half of the people push the blue button, then only the people who pressed the red button will survive. If more than half the people push the blue button, then everyone will survive.​

​

Framing 2: You have two buttons. Everyone who pushes the red button will survive. People who push the blue button will die unless more than half of all people push the blue button.​

Now... what's the functional and logical difference between those two framings?