Kofi

@mariana287 @Devon_Eriksen_ Why? If you just stay, no one dies. This is my exact point. Everyone over analyzes. The real reason you’re pressing red is due to overthinking and mistrust. You may feel free to press the red button, but your original position should be intuitively pressing blue.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ Then I would run tf outta there 🤣

You are offered a pill. Anyone who takes the pill, dies, unless over 50% of humanity takes the pill. Obviously, you cannot be affected by the pill if you don't take it. Is the same moral scenario as the red and blue buttons?

Person pressing red: “blue requires coordination and trust” Also person pressing red: “exactly 100% of people JUST need to think the exact same way and press the exact same button” Loool

@VSClive @Devon_Eriksen_ That’s what I said. You’re trying to force the problem to be void of morality. It is a very moral question and it’s why your examples always frame that pressing the red button does nothing. It does do something and that something is the reason why you should press blue.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ I'm not equating that. I'm actually very much of the opinion that this problem is not a moral one at all. Neither choice is more or less moral than the other imo

@VSClive @Devon_Eriksen_ So if we agree active choice is a significant component, we cannot simplify the problem by equating choosing red to “doing nothing”. Trying to force it to not be a moral dilemma doesn’t make you smarter, it demonstrates lack of critical thinking

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ 100% it's a significant component, but it differs from the trolley problem in the fact that taking that action does not inherently put anybody in harms way, only their own actions can do that

@VSClive @Devon_Eriksen_ So we can agree that taking action is at the very least a significant component of the problem. Why would you remove it from the scenario? Answer: to absolve moral responsibility. Doing nothing to save yourself is intuitively better than doing something that puts others in danger

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ This is what I mean by the action is what makes it feel worse. In this example, not taking the pill seems obvious at first however taking the pill is still the only way to guarantee your own safety so it is still the optimal choice, but that's much less obvious

@waitbutwhy The only reason someone pressing blue would change to red is if the count was revealed and red was the overwhelming majority. It seems to be the more universally applicable choice as well.

@waitbutwhy I’m not sure if this point is super relevant but people who press the red button become more uncomfortable when different factors are added (family or children involved). If you press blue, changing factors don’t seem to have any effect on the choice

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

@JohnnyFryer2 @Devon_Eriksen_ They are not the same. And there’s a reason why people choosing red default to this type of example. The moral weight of the decision is softened when you frame it with inaction. The original question calls for intentional action, any analogy must follow.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ Everyone gets the pill, there are only two options, take it or don't. If you take it you contribute to the percentage of people who did. If not you add to the percentage of people didn't. If the people who take it are >50% the the blue option happens, if not then the red does

@VSClive @Devon_Eriksen_ Furthermore, by framing the question that way, you make not taking the pill (red button) the default, as not taking the pill is the natural state. 100 people. If none of you take the pill, no one dies. If more than 51 take the pill, the rest die. You wouldn’t take the pill.

@VSClive @Devon_Eriksen_ Yes but the problem is with the way it’s posed. Even if I concede they’re equivalent, “Don’t take the pill and nothing happens” is misleading. By “choosing” (as you put it), you are contributing to the ratio possibly causing others to die. That is not “nothing”

@mariana287 @Devon_Eriksen_ Or…you could just not leave? Lol. This is why inaction vs action is important. Also the original question poses that you don’t know anyone’s decision, so no, you wouldn’t be able to watch anyone leave.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ Actually, it makes it even better for leaving if this is the case because you can see the other people choosing to leave and leave too. Now if you tell me the first 51 to leave live and the rest cannot leave, that is another question.

@mariana287 @Devon_Eriksen_ It provides a different context. You’re make pressing red the default. I can do the same with my position. 100 people in a room. If 51 leave, the other 49 die. If you stay in the room, no one dies. Do you leave the room? Of course not. But that’s not how the original is posed.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ To press and not to press are 2 choices, both count towards the total of people that entered the room. You do not like the word abstain, you can say to turn around and leave the room vs press or whatever. Choosing not to press is still a choice, that is my point.

@mariana287 @Devon_Eriksen_ That’s why I’m saying your scenario is not the same as the original. There needs to be two distinct choices.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ That is not the scenario I wrote. I wrote that unless more than 50% of the people that enter the room press the button, then all who pressed die. The people abstaining count towards the 100% because there is ONLY ONE BUTTON in the room. Otherwise it would always be 100% blue...

@mariana287 @Devon_Eriksen_

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ In the second scenario there is no red, there is only blue or nothing and the math is the same. If out of 10 people 6 pressed and 4 did not, when the 11th person chooses to abstain now the ratio is 6 blue and 5 abstain, which is the same as the first case.

@mariana287 @Devon_Eriksen_ Person 1 has increased the likelihood that blue button pressers die. Person 2 does not.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ So in the original situation you would press blue and in this situation you wouldn't press the button? Is the act of pressing such a radical difference?

@VSClive @Devon_Eriksen_ Person 1 has increased the likelihood that blue button pressers die. Person 2 does not.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ OK and you could say the same about not taking the pill actively decreases the ratio of taking the pill vs not. It's no different, except one requires you to press a button so you *feel* like it's worse, but in reality the outcome is identical.

@JohnnyFryer2 @Devon_Eriksen_ You’re misunderstanding. There is a ratio that determines the outcome. The more red there is, the more likely it is >1 person dies. If you don’t pick anything you don’t contribute to the ratio. If you press red, you increase the red to blue ratio. It’s not the same.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ That's not how it works. Whether you like it or not you are participating the moment you know what the pill does. You don't just get to pretend you aren't involved in hitting the metaphorical red button in your head because there isn't also a literal red button in front of you.

@JohnnyFryer2 @Devon_Eriksen_ It is not irrelevant. In one scenario you are choosing not to participate. In another scenario you are participating, saving yourself, and adding to the likelihood that others that didn’t choose the same as you die.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ You are making a choice regardless. Whether or not a red piece of plastic is involved is irrelevant.

@mariana287 @Devon_Eriksen_ You’ve just repeated the same scenario. You’ve absolved consequence stemming from action and replaced it with doing nothing. My response would be the same. Pressing the button and possibly contributing to death is not the same as choosing to abstain.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ You enter a room where there is one button. If you do not press it, nothing happens. But if you press it, you will die unless more than 50% of people press it too. What about now?

@VSClive @Devon_Eriksen_ No they are not the same. The question poses the result as a ratio. As long as everybody presses blue, red will never be over 50%. By pressing red you actively decrease the blue to red ratio and directly contribute to any death that occurs. You’ve removed consequence.

@espresso_14 @Devon_Eriksen_ To take or not to take is still a choice though. By choosing red you are choosing not to take the pill