Anon improves the button question
Posted by bartholomewjohnson@reddit | greentext | View on Reddit | 72 comments
Posted by bartholomewjohnson@reddit | greentext | View on Reddit | 72 comments
p1terdeN@reddit
The button question is stupid because the answer is simple: there is no way 100% of people press the red button, so if over 50% of people press it, somebody will die, so by picking red you a choosing to risk killing between 0-50% of people to save yourself, which means the morally correct option is the blue button
Vannak201@reddit
"The answer is simple"
Bro overcomplicates it comes to the wrong conclusion
RoninOak@reddit
I disagree with anon. pressing the button is not deliberately selfish, it is survivor logic.
That being said, I would wait until the final two seconds to press the button, just to be a dick.
Ozymandias_1303@reddit
I feel like waiting is actually better because the person in group 2 doesn't have to suffer in anticipation.
Fit_Salamander_2814@reddit
Correct. I have a moral obligation to myself to value my life more highly than your life. Same goes for you. There's nothing immoral about that stance.
Big-Rub9545@reddit
There’s no moral principle being applied here. This is just a (questionable) personal value.
StealthSlav@reddit
The moral principle is that you avoid putting yourself in dangerous situations where others have to risk themselves for your sake.
Seriously, ignoring your personal duty to not put yourself in the line of fire, you can look up duty to rescue, it forces you to save people in danger (good Samaritan laws just give legal protection to the person helping). None of the countries that have duty to rescue laws force you to rescue someone if that action will put you at risk. And pressing the blue button is the definition of putting yourself at risk.
Big-Rub9545@reddit
Since when did legal principles dictate morals? And the main point is that it isn’t *necessary* (at least not to the point where you’d be punished by law), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t *good*. You can also apply this principle to your own children, parents, family, friends, etc., and see how quickly you end up arbitrarily favoring your life over theirs.
You don’t *have* to donate money to the poor, but that doesn’t mean you *shouldn’t*.
You’re drawing up a false dichotomy here.
StealthSlav@reddit
I didn't say legal principles dictate morals, it's morals that usually dictate legal principles, so the fact that duty to rescue laws don't force you to put yourself in danger, and the lack of protests over these laws, shows that a majority of people do not believe that you should be forced to put yourself at risk to help others.
Risking yourself for others is good, but to a certain degree. If I walk up to you and say let's play "Russian roulette with a machine gun together - oh and if you refuse I'm going to slice my neck open" you agreeing doesn't make you good it makes you foolish. And just like the other guy said, if you jump in with a drowning person and start drowning yourself - congrats, there are now two drowning people, and you're regarded (as a man of little in the way of intellect).
Just donating money to the homeless doesn't carry any risk, you chose to give a completely harmless example to try and make your argument seem logical. Now if you liquidate all your assets, and divide them between all homeless, making them all a few cents richer and leaving yourself homeless because you hope that a billionaire out there will see your actions and have pity on you - that's risk.
And there's no false dichotomy here, the whole argument only has two options, red and blue. No risk for no reward vs risk for no reward. I choose to not drink the kool aid, you choose to drink it in the hopes that everyone drinks together, diluting it enough that it's harmless.
Big-Rub9545@reddit
This seems to almost be deliberate strawman-ing of every point made.
Laws aren’t drawn up together by the “majority of people”. And once again assuming a good action is a necessary action (which I never said and yet you continue to criticize, for some reason).
Bringing up cases that don’t actually involve any kind of meaningful personal sacrifice are, unsurprisingly, entirely unrelated to my point. The initial point of discussion was whether or not it is a moral edict to always favor and preserve one’s life over others’ lives, not whether or not dying recklessly is somehow praiseworthy.
Donating money has nothing to do with the point about sacrifice; it’s to illustrate that an action may not be morally obligatory, yet still be morally good. Why or how you understood that to be related to sacrificing one’s life eludes me.
Lastly, no comment from my end was made on the original problem (though I should briefly point out that you’re begging the question with the “no reward” comment, since moral righteousness should be its own reward). If you wish to address points and comments I *have* made thus far, go ahead.
StealthSlav@reddit
I have not once implied that a good action is a necessary action, or implied that you tsacrifice. You can't just lie about what I say and then accuse me of lying.
You decided to bring up giving money to homeless people, an action that unless taken to the very extreme, has no meaningful personal sacrifice. Not me. and the initial point of discussion is the red button blue button debate, and whether you should be willing to risk your life for people who willingly and knowingly put themselves in danger.
We're discussing Russian roulette and you bring up scratch off lottery tickets to show how akchually gambling isn't really all that bad. You bring up a scenario where you have purposefully lowered the stakes through the floor and get uppity when I show why your argument is fallacious.
You made a comment on a comment about the original problem, ergo your comment is directly tied to the problem. You can't remove his comment from the context of the problem, because that removes the whole purpose of the argument. And the argument is the prisoner's dillema but squealing carries no risk and punishment at all, while staying silent still has all the same risks, except you can feel good about yourself I guess.
You haven't made anypoinths that I haven't addressed. Let me summarize the whole argument for you:
FitSalamander: I believe that it's a moral obligation for everyone to take care of themselves and not force others to risk their lives for them.
You: That's not a moral obligation because there's no moral principle, it's a personal value that I dislike.
Me: that's exactly what a moral obligation is (a personal value), here's the moral principle it's based on, and just about every country on earth agrees with him.
You: I don't care what every country thinks, and the lack of people protesting against these laws doesn't mean anything to me. Aso giving money to the homeless is good.
Me: You're reducing the stakes. The point is about risking your life for another person (and in this case, one who willingly put themself in danger).
And you keep repeating about your preferred actions being morally good, but keep lowering the cost, avoiding the whole point of the argument. Until you make a point about why risking yourself in a way that just make you another person in need of the same help you want to give is morally correct, and why not doing so makes one morally incorrect, you haven't made a single point.
Big-Rub9545@reddit
It’s truly laughable that, in response to my accusation of strawman-ing, you choose to strawman several points and statements instead. I don’t think I have much else to add here. Would just like anyone reading to reflect on this silly attempt to address any point I’ve made thus far. Astounding.
Big-Rub9545@reddit
It’s truly laughable that, in response to my accusation of strawman-ing, you choose to strawman several points and statements instead. I don’t think I have much else to add here. Would just like anyone reading to reflect on this silly attempt to address any point I’ve made thus far. Astounding.
Doomie_bloomers@reddit
Duty to rescue laws almost always include ba clause, that if you put yourself in danger, you are under no obligation to help. That is something you very specifically learn in a first aid course - if you try and rescue e.g. a drowning person, but physically can't ensure you will make it, don't try it. Worst case there are now two drowning people, who need rescuing.
This even holds for professionals.
BanzaiKen@reddit
I would always press the button. Bluepillers are morons and use mediocrity like a bludgeon to survive. Simultaneously, my most ferverant wish in a world comprised of jaded redpillers is carastrophic species ending omnicide. The red button is a covenant with the gods that the biggest morons suffer the sharpest axes.
Krypt0night@reddit
Also, of course I'm gonna be selfish with that button and my one life. I'd tell my friends and loved ones they better do the same.
b2hcy0@reddit
no you wouldnt, bc you cant be sure of action delay or a malfunctioning button
RoninOak@reddit
Uh, you don't know me and I'm not going to entertain your hypotheticals.
So yeah, I would, thanks.
b2hcy0@reddit
also:
b2hcy0@reddit
right, hypotheticals suck
Datdudecorks@reddit
The button thing is just dumb. There is no downside of hitting the red button at all, you live if you hit it and live if more hit the blue button why would you not just go with that option.
Also the results would be more red anyway if the given was not hypothetical due to survivoral instincts coming into play
jaquiethecat@reddit
the only way to consider red as having no downside is if you don't care about who you might be killing by contributing to red.
MrBones-Necromancer@reddit
You're not killing anyone though. You're choosing the "I live" button. Those who gambled they may die may lose that gamble, but it was their choice that did that.
The only ones who have -any- chance of dieing are those picking blue.
jaquiethecat@reddit
you're contributing to the red amount, if enough people contribute, the scale tips and all blues die. you're contributing to the kill people option.
MrBones-Necromancer@reddit
You've got two buttons: one says "press this button to live" and one that says "press this button and you and everyone else who pressed it may die".
Why in the fuck would you pick the second? There's no additonal benefit to either button. One is a sure thing and the other is gambling with your life and the lives of others.
jaquiethecat@reddit
one is something that contributes to the kill people option, one is the one that contributes to the save people option
MrBones-Necromancer@reddit
No, both buttons save people, thats the entire point, but the only people to save with the blue option are those who purposefully placed themselves in danger. No one who presses the red button is in -any- risk. It's not a prisoner's dilemma.
Datdudecorks@reddit
It’s just mental gymnastics to feel like they are superior for fake caring about strangers when in reality most would still hit the red button if it was a real situation
MrBones-Necromancer@reddit
It's ridiculous. They're cheering for solving a problem -they- created.
It's like someone jumping down onto subway tracks and yelling "If enough of us jump down here, we can stop the train and no one has to get run over!" Like...no one was going to get run over if you'd just stayed off the fuckin tracks! There was no danger until you -created- one.
NakeleKantoo@reddit
that is not killing anybody, if somebody chooses to gamble their life, thats their problem why should I gamble mine too
Strangegary@reddit
Pushing red put every single one of your friends and family in danger .
Datdudecorks@reddit
They all said red too, there is 0 downside to red in the question asked since you live either way.
The question would have been better if red had a downside as well like blue did. Something like if more than 50% pick red everyone dies so that the choice actually had real risk to it.
Game shows do it this way when the same situation is about prize money. Share it or steal it all but if you both select steal no one gets it
jaquiethecat@reddit
are they all american? lmao
wsdpii@reddit
The premise is pretty dumb. If everyone is "selfish" and presses the red button, nobody dies. People only die if they press the blue button out of some misguided sense of self-sacrifice.
Dripht_wood@reddit
I think it just goes to show that what’s correct at the most basic level may not work in practice once you introduce human unpredictability.
People on Reddit are annoying as hell but they are definitely more intelligent than average too.
SrirachaSandwich27@reddit
I think it goes to show a lot of people don’t logically think through things, some see words like “save people” and the emotional gut reaction makes them think that’s the right choice, when it’s so obviously NOT.
wsdpii@reddit
Fair. There's definitely people out there who wouldn't even bother with the terms of the "button test" and push blue because they like the color blue.
Tago238238@reddit
“Hm, I guess I would press the button because my life matters as much as anyone else’s and I personally prefer to live.”
“I think the act of pressing the button would still be bad because you’re acting in a way that puts someone at risk. I value morals over my life, so I wouldn’t press it, though I understand it’s way less morally bad than murder as we tend to understand it.”
And that’s basically the extent of any conversation on this. Wow, what an interesting hypothetical!!!!!!
Automatic-Put-6119@reddit
I dont get anon here. Doesnt this just simplify to letting yourself or someone else die? The original scenario is way more interesting imo
Fit_Salamander_2814@reddit
The original scenario is simply a critical thinking and logic test. EVERYBODY should choose red, because it's the way to guarantee your own survival. And there's nothing immoral about placing your life above my life, same as there's nothing immoral about me placing my life above yours.
Strangegary@reddit
I fully understand your point of view but completely disagree, with all due respect . I see it more as a test of trust in humanity in a way? If it was a game show that said " if everyone press blue you all get 100 bucks, but if there are enough red button pressers they'll each have 50 bucks instead."? The logical action is to press blue and assume people will have the same logic as you .
Personalityjax@reddit
The game show scenario you presented is not the same as the original though. In the original scenario the only reason to press blue is if you think a large minority of people have pressed blue and you want to try to save them. The outcome of everyone pressing blue and everyone pressing red is the exact same. In the scenario you gave, there is a very good reason to press blue (you get 50 more bucks then if you press red).
Strangegary@reddit
If you press red and come out alive you will live in a world where a huge chunck of the population is dead, by the decision of the survivor. You will have dead relatives and friends (statistically inevitable) and society will be populated by the person that are the more likely to put themselves above other. It doesn't sound like a pleasant world.
So i would say that the blue reward is much greater than the red reward .
Personalityjax@reddit
That's assuming a large minority of people would click blue, and the number of people who click blue depends heavily on how the problem is presented.
RiD_JuaN@reddit
In all the original and major versions of this poll, blue won with 56-64 ish percent. You might think it would go down in a world with life on the line, but who knows! I liked an alternate formulation that goes like:
Everyone on Earth but ten people have to press red or blue:
Press blue: if 50%+ choose blue, everyone lives. else, everyone who chose blue and the ten die. Press red: you live guaranteed.
This changes a decent amount of people's intuitions to become a blue presser. But you can be assured many more than 10 people will choose blue in the original version.
Unless you think they have some deserved death for choosing blue, I think the only good reason to change answers with this formulation is that you think blue has a much higher chance of becoming the majority answer
Yum-z@reddit
It’s an interesting one, because to me what it really is is a demonstration of the effects of framing.
Because it’s framed in a way where you save people if you press blue, there’s simultaneously an instinctual desire to work towards the greater good and also a manufactured moral high ground through the wording (saving instead of killing). It’s a thought experiment on how much societal trust there is left
As others have analytically pointed out, the end result is the same if either side wins, but the inherent risk in picking blue versus red results in a paradoxical guise of safety (surely I’m safe if I pick the save everyone option?). In a game theory environment where all parties are supposed to behave rationally and behave in a manner to maximize own personal gain, the obvious answer should be red. One simple look at expected values should have cleared up any confusion about which button to pick. The only issue left is social framing
Fit_Salamander_2814@reddit
Sure. But I will counter you with, 'do you wear your seatbelt when in a car? Or a helmet when on a bike?' Legality aside, if you trust humanity, why bother with the seatbelt or helmet?
Strangegary@reddit
I do not think these exemples are relevant, because those security are useful even against myself . You put your own mask to avoid chaos in a crowded plane, and most importantly putting on your own mask or putting on a helmet do not endanger the life of other, which is the huge part of the dilemma.
If you press red you effectively put other at risk . Imagine chosing red, living, and realising your mother and best friend had pressed blue? (Appeal to emotion i know. But justified.)
The rewards for pressing blue is much greater than the one for red. If everyone is aware of that, they would conclude that it's best to press blue
Eiraneth@reddit
The reward for pressing blue is identical to the reward to pressing red. My mother and best friend would not choose blue because they value their own life at least a bit more than literally nothing, just as they would not step into oncoming traffic in some stupid ass trust fall exercise with the driver in that lane. Also the reason you put your own mask on first on the plane isn’t to “avoid chaos” it’s because in the case of a breach in the pressurized hull the amount of oxygen you get per breath will drop below what is required to keep your brain functional in a very short period of time, eventually resulting in unconsciousness and death. So you put on your mask first before fussing around with the person next to you to ensure that you trying to put their mask on doesn’t burn the oxygen you need to do so, as well as the oxygen you need to put your own mask on. Funnily enough it’s actually a direct support of the red button. The first thing you should do when there’s a life in danger is ensure your own life is not in danger before attempting to help others, because if everyone goes to help the unconscious person lying in a room the moment they see them, they’ll die to whatever just killed them.
katilkoala101@reddit
Isolating the knowledge of what other people may choose, red is always the more rational answer. The blue argument is that at least 5% of the population (children/elderly, mentally/visually impaired) will always press the blue button, and that a blue majority would save them.
But without knowing the utility that 5% would bring, risking your life for them is just as selfish in the form of emotional masturbation. In fact, I bet you couldnt name me a single rational act that is selfless in both material and emotion.
Substantial_Fun_2966@reddit
You would be dead and I would have 50 dollas
Strangegary@reddit
Which is completely stupid because you could have had 100 "dollas" so i don't really see your point lmao
ShinyGrezz@reddit
More than anything your choices are:
Reading_username@reddit
Here's a better one:
Everyone has a red and blue button. Pressing red deletes any and all remembrance of Sandy Cheeks C.V. from the internet and people's memories. Pressing blue deletes any and all remembrance of blue waffles from the internet and people's remembrance.
Pressing both deletes tumblr. Doing nothing gets you a big mac with extra sauce.
SpezIsAGayMfer@reddit
Press both out of morbid curiousity and because i never got into tumblr.
OvercastqT@reddit
i get a big mac and goon to blue waffle?
FailureToReason@reddit
Man, what a head-scratcher.
ExoTheFlyingFish@reddit
Big Mac sucks and the sauce is worse. I'm pressing the shit out of both.
Unironically get you a two cheeseburger meal. The ratio of ingredients is so much better than the BM or QP and it's better for stuffing fries into.
Moore2257@reddit
How much extra we talking about?
Vegetable-Willow6702@reddit
This is even dumber. Why would anyone press the red button?
Vinyl-addict@reddit
So if someone else presses both buttons but I do nothing do I still get the big mac?
The_Meemeli@reddit
Yummers
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
Dude I picked blue because it was a poll on Twitter and I obviously wasnt looking for the fucking word game I took it at face value do u expect me to analyze the stupid tweets I read while smoking a cig and masturbating or something
Happy_Ocelot_4945@reddit
U smoke in the shower? Wtf
gnarlyhobo@reddit
No greater pairing for a shower beer
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
I actually have through the shower window and keeping the cig on the corner of the windowsill to keep it dry
LuckeyHaskens@reddit
Anon presents a completely novel hypothetical that has absolutely nothing in common with the original hypothetical.
StormOfFatRichards@reddit
There's one button. Pressing it gives you a cock to suck but also kills someone at random. The question is how people will OP murder in an hour.
Marchus80@reddit
It's still neutral at that point. To be a meaningful sacrifice it would need to save two people not one.
pocketgravel@reddit
Everyone talks like they're in group 1, and what they will do when they are.
avagrantthought@reddit
Wouldn't this infinitely be a better question if you asked 'at what number of lives sacrificed for your own, would you choose to not press the button'?
RexInvictus787@reddit
But anons scenario tests a different dilemma. The original is supposed to test whether you would risk your own life for others (even if it’s not necessary to do so) when there is an option not to.