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

[Emily's Cat]

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 find it interesting that you've turned the blues into vicious intentional murderers, just to deny people the ability to choose to avoid unecessary danger. What a peculiar mindset.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I'm perfectly content with anyone's choice to press blue. I'm also content with anyone's choice to press red.

I'm absolutely fascinated (and a bit concerned) by the tendency of blues to demonize reds and cast them as killers... for the crime of not saving blues from themselves.

As I have said before, I really do think the world needs both types of people. We need people willing to take risks, and we also need people who will avoid unnecessary risks.

 

[Thermal]

That is an absurd and not even remotely analogous scenario.

It's exact, and predictably, you have to bristle hard against it.

At no point whatsoever are reds actually killing anyone at all.

Absolutely they are, any way you look at it. Blues button pushers are in no danger whatsover from anyone, unless Red votes top 51%. It is solely the collective affect of Red votes that gets them killed; no Blue votes can kill them, by your own terms. It doesn't matter how badly you want to squirm away from that simple reality. And I get it, you have to, if you want to view Red as non-deadly to others and see your choice in a better light.

.

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?

Again with the trolleys. The trolley is a convenient misrepresentation for you becaise it is inevitable death coming from some external force. But thats not the button pushing scenario. The death only comes from 51% Red votes... your vote.

Notice how you put Reds in the default null action again? And did you notice how you put everyone on Team Red from the start, again? So Blue had to actually change from Red to vote in your trolley reframIng, yet again, and Reds did nothing at all. That is not analogous to your own OP premise, where everyone was neutral till the consequential action of pushing one button or the other.

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.

You don't understand odds. It's 50/50 if random. As we see from the polls, it's not random, but favors Blue, which is consistent with all my positions, and fails with all your trolleys.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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

No, I don't. Please explain.
Regardless of that explanation, when you pressed the red button, you voted for people to die.

Your moral framework requires that everyone take direct action even if it places themselves and others at risk,

I didn't levy any requirements on anyone, beyond being accountable for one's choices.

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?

No, but I do think that they chose to let the other person die. (ETA: This is assuming that said 90-year-old had the capacity to at least try, but chose not to; their inaction isn't a choice if they *couldn't* have acted otherwise in a meaningful way.) That choice may have made sense for them, they may not have had any practicable alternative that wasn't suicidal and counter-productive, but it remains what they voted for. Accountability doesn't necessarily entail culpability, but it does entail owning what you actually did.

Why do you think this is a competition where one side is a winner and the other side is a loser?

Because that is exactly what it is. There are two outcomes, only one of which can prevail. That's a competition.

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.

They knowingly voted for something morally repugnant to avoid any risk to themselves. I reserve judgment on how bad a person one must be to do that, but I'm not seeing it as a virtuous choice.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I don't think it's necessarily a mistake. In this specific scenario, I think it's illogical, but that doesn't make it a mistake, nor does it make anyone a bad person.

In the original scenario, I absolutely understand the view that some people will puch blue by accident or at random, so some people believe they are obligated to push blue to save those innocents (in shorthand, babies). In this scenario, however, there are no babies. Nobody fails to understand the tradeoff.

I understand and respect that some people will still choose blue, because they believe that someone else will inevitably choose blue. It's noble, it's altruistic, and I get that.

What I don't get is why they think other people will push blue in this specific scenario. In this specific scenario, it's clearly a case of blues intentionally putting themselves in danger for no apparent reason. It's jumping in front of a moving car instead of staying on the sidewalk. More than that - it's jumping in front of a moving car to place yourself between the car and the other person that jumped in front of a moving car.

I'm starting to understand, however, that at least some of the people who chose blue are doing so NOT because they want to save others, but because they believe red is evil.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A, I was wondering when it would become clear to you that this is just another trolley problem

It's always been a modified trolley problem.

I'm amending this. It's a Prisoner's Trolley Dilemma.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

The fact that you seem to genuinely think that NOT TAKING AN AVOIDABLE RISK makes someone evil bothers me a lot.

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.

If you were casting a vote on behalf of those you love, not for yourself... would you risk their lives on a gamble?

 

[Tristan Chi]

Even here, a bastion of slightly rational thinking, we end up with a comfortable blue majority. May the reds be forever known.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

WHY are you certain it will be more than zero? Again, there are no babies. Every single person involved understands that pressing red is completely safe, and pressing blue *introduces* a risk of death that doesn't need to exist.

WHY do you think OTHER PEOPLE would CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY risk death when there is no need to do so?

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?

You keep turning this into reds taking direct action to kill blues, rather than refraining from a gamble. What you seem to be ignoring (or willfully pretending to ignore) is that every red voter sincerely wants everyone else to also vote red - nobody needs to die, nobody even needs to risk death. I don't want anyone to risk death when it can be avoided.

I don't want anyone to choose to do recreational fentanyl. I don't want anyone to gamble their house. I don't want anyone to play russian roulette.

I certainly don't think it's immoral and evil of me to decline to do fentanyl, or gamble my house, or play russian roulette alongside those cognitively competent adults who choose to do so.

Why do you think it's immoral of me to not take up fentanyl alongside you?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

So we've

WHY are you certain it will be more than zero? Again, there are no babies. Every single person involved understands that pressing red is completely safe, and pressing blue *introduces* a risk of death that doesn't need to exist.

WHY do you think OTHER PEOPLE would CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY risk death when there is no need to do so?

You keep turning this into reds taking direct action to kill blues, rather than refraining from a gamble. What you seem to be ignoring (or willfully pretending to ignore) is that every red voter sincerely wants everyone else to also vote red - nobody needs to die, nobody even needs to risk death. I don't want anyone to risk death when it can be avoided.

I don't want anyone to choose to do recreational fentanyl. I don't want anyone to gamble their house. I don't want anyone to play russian roulette.

I certainly don't think it's immoral and evil of me to decline to do fentanyl, or gamble my house, or play russian roulette alongside those cognitively competent adults who choose to do so.

Why do you think it's immoral of me to not take up fentanyl alongside you?

You've been told multiple times. Me, Thermal and Darat are voting blue. That's how we know some people are voting blue. We understand your argument, we disagree with it. That's how the world works.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's not a gotcha, ferchristsakes. It's intended to be a different scenario - that's the whole ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point!

I note however, that you didn't answer. Under that clearly and intentionally different scenario... would you still pick blue?

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%?"

For all of your self-congratulatory empathy and nobility, you sure are quick to assume malice on my part.

Since it seems a bit too complex for you to follow, I'm interested in the inflection points. I'm not trying to force anyone to pick one or the other. I assume that different scenarios will produce different results. I'm curious what those scenarios are - where the tipping points are.

And since you seem oblivious to what I actually say (you're not alone in that), let me reiterate: In the original twitter poll, I picked red. I did so because it was an already-magical situation, and I assumed that everyone magically would be capable of understanding the trade-off. Someone else I was talking to picked blue and said they assumed babies would be involved and would hit buttons at random. I can't go back and change my vote, but I will happily concede that if babies are involved, I'm pushing blue.

I'm not so inclined to risk my life when there are no babies. It's awesome if more than 50% of people are willing to risk their lives to save people who risked their lives to save people who risked their lives to save people who gambled their lives - that's not a bad thing. On the other hand, I don't think anyone should be obligated to risk their lives to save people from the consequences of their own informed decisions. And I really rather like my life - I don't want to risk my life with all of my loved ones, on the chance that less than 50% want to gamble with me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's exact, and predictably, you have to bristle hard against it.

It's not. Unless you want to admit to being a killer right now, and for every day for the rest of your life. If you want to go ahead and admit that you're already a killer and will continue to be so, then fine.

Absolutely they are, any way you look at it. Blues button pushers are in no danger whatsover from anyone, unless Red votes top 51%. It is solely the collective affect of Red votes that gets them killed; no Blue votes can kill them, by your own terms. It doesn't matter how badly you want to squirm away from that simple reality. And I get it, you have to, if you want to view Red as non-deadly to others and see your choice in a better light.

The risk does not even exist until someone picks blue. Literally nobody is at risk until someone selects blue.

You're just determined to make that 90 year old a killer in your eyes for failing to risk their own life to save the teenager trying to surf the flood.

Again with the trolleys. The trolley is a convenient misrepresentation for you becaise it is inevitable death coming from.from.some external force. But thats not the button pushing scenario. The death only comes from 51% Red votes... your vote.

It was ALWAYS death coming from an external force. The death only arises from people selecting blue.

Notice how you put Reds in the default null action again? And did you notice how you put everyone on Team Red from the start, again?

No, I changed it specifically becaues you complained about my trolley framing having red be a null option. In this case, both parties need to make an active choice - step forward or step backward. There is no null. Nobody gets to stay standing in place on the now-nonexistent edge of the platform.

Red has ALWAYS been the "safe" option. From the very beginning, red is safe. They're not forcing anyone to court death, and they're declining to court death for themselves. It's ALWAYS been the null.

Do you step forward onto the tracks, or do you step backward to safety?

So Blue had to actually change from Red to vote in your trolley reframIng, yet again, and Reds did nothing at all. That is not analogous to your own OP premise, where everyone was neutral till the consequential action of pushing one button or the other.

It is analogous - step forward or step backward. Nobody has to change their vote, everyone has to choose one or the other.

Do you step forward onto the tracks in hopes that at least 500 other people step forward with you? Or do you step back to the safety of the platform and refrain from risking your life?

You don't understand odds. It's 50/50 if random. As we see from the polls, it's not random, but favors Blue, which is consistent with all my positions, and fails with all your trolleys.

I understand odds better than you do. But that's fine. It's not actually an odds problem in the first place. It's always been a risk-aversion versus trust-in-strangers problem.

I find it both baffling and concerning that you think avoiding unnecessary risk is evil.

 

[junkshop]

Look at the poll results. All of them. The majority votes blue every time.

It's kinda beautiful.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I don't. Please explain.
Regardless of that explanation, when you pressed the red button, you voted for people to die.
...
No, but I do think that they chose to let the other person die. ETA: This is assuming that said 90-year-old had the capacity to at least try, but chose not to; their inaction isn't a choice if they *couldn't* have acted otherwise in a meaningful way. That choice may have made sense for them, they may not have had any practicable alternative that wasn't suicidal and counter-productive, but it remains what they voted for. Accountability doesn't necessarily entail culpability, but it does entail owning what you actually did.

The framing you (and Thermal and some others) are using is that a person who chooses not to risk their life is killing the person who chose to risk their life. You're using a framework in which it's obligatory to try to save other people, including saving them from the consequences of their own choices.

I say it's morally laudable, but not morally obligatory.

If it's morally obligatory in this thought experiment, then I would presume that you hold the same principle in real life. By that reasoning, you would then believe it's morally obligatory for you to take direct action at risk of your own life to try to save someone who jumped into a raging river on purpose. Failure to do so, under the framework you're using in this scenario, would make you a killer. Your failure to save someone from the easily foreseeable consequences of their own actions makes you immoral.

That's what your framework with this thought experiment implies.

What that means, however, is that you are already a killer by your own principles. There absolutely exists someone on the planet, most likely someone in your town, who you could have saved if you had taken action. Every single day someone dies of a drug overdose that you could have prevented if you had actively gone out and looked for the addicts with a bag full of naloxone. You could have saved them - it's in your power to do so. But you didn't. You did nothing, and they died.

By the logic espoused in this scenario, your lack of action makes you morally culpable for the death of a stranger who you didn't even try to save.

Because that is exactly what it is. There are two outcomes, only one of which can prevail. That's a competition.

Actually, this isn't true. There are infinite outcomes. But let's pretend everything exists with only 1% whole increments, producing a total of 100 possible combinations. There are 50 outcomes where everyone lives. There's the unlikely (but highly desirable) outcome where 100% of the participants choose red; and there are 49 other outcomes where more than 50% of people pick blue. At the end of the day, 50% of all possible combinations result in everyone living.

The only real difference to me, is that I don't think anyone is evil in any scenario.

They knowingly voted for something morally repugnant to avoid any risk to themselves.

By your logic, you are morally repugnant for not saving the life of the guy downtown who died of a fentanyl overdose.

I reserve judgment on how bad a person one must be to do that, but I'm not seeing it as a virtuous choice.

If you were casting the vote, not for yourself but for your loved ones... would you consider yourself morally repugnant if you chose not to risk their lives?

 

[Darat]

I'm perfectly content with anyone's choice to press blue. I'm also content with anyone's choice to press red.

I'm absolutely fascinated (and a bit concerned) by the tendency of blues to demonize reds and cast them as killers... for the crime of not saving blues from themselves.

As I have said before, I really do think the world needs both types of people. We need people willing to take risks, and we also need people who will avoid unnecessary risks.

Out of the two button choices only one is tied to killing anyone.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You've been told multiple times. Me, Thermal and Darat are voting blue.

You know that now, of course. But why would you think Thermal and Darat would risk their lives in the first place?

That's how we know some people are voting blue.

But you didn't know it at the time you cast your vote. You were making an assumption at the time you cast your vote. What assumption were you making for WHY other people would take unnecessary risks? What reason would other people have to walk into danger when it could be entirely avoided, and none of them are babies?

We understand your argument, we disagree with it. That's how the world works.

Given that some of you keep calling reds killers and morally repugnant, I really don't think you understand my argument at all. Especially since you seem to be of the same opinion as Thermal - that I'm trying to get you to change your vote. I'm not trying to get you to change your vote. I'm trying to get you to do two things: 1) understand that red votes are also reasonable and not evil and 2) understand that your choice is not without risk to others and yourself. I'm trying to get all of you to exercise your theory of mind, and actually genuinely consider a different point of view.

More than anything, I'm trying to ferret out the inflection points

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I understand and respect that some people will still choose blue, because they believe that someone else will inevitably choose blue. It's noble, it's altruistic, and I get that. ...snip...

Or they know they couldn't live with themselves if they'd been responsible for killing people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Look at the poll results. All of them. The majority votes blue every time.

Under this set of conditions, yes. I don't think it holds under other conditions. I'm genuinely curious where the inflection points are - for both sets of people.

It's kinda beautiful.

I also think it's beautiful. I just don't think risk averse people are evil.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Out of the two button choices only one is tied to killing anyone.

Neither choice kills anyone. In some cases people die, but nobody is killing them Darat.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Or they know they couldn't live with themselves if they'd been responsible for killing people.

You are responsible for killing people under your moral framework. However do you live with yourself?