Leonardo Rezende

@theramblingfool All this to say that, I think argument 1 is also the one that kind of makes some sense from the list, and is in the end what is underlying my thought process here. However, from a moral standpoint, I can see myself gambling with my life, and my life only, never that of others.

@theramblingfool The "Game Theory" folk are just not accounting for the immediate impact the deaths of billions of people would have on each individual, not only from an emotional standpoint, hence its really a modelling error on their part.

Every Pro-red argument: (1) Cynicism: "It's impossible for blue to win. Don't be suicidal." (2) Narcissism: "There is no downside to pressing red." (3) Changing the hypo: "Babies don't count. That'd be stupid! So there's a blender..." (4) Psychopathy: "Blue pressers deserve to die." (5) General poor analytic reasoning: "If everyone just pressed red!"

@MiketheMoose3k @lporiginalg ... , or some of them, still did the killing, even if none of them know which one. Had they not been there the prisoner would still be alive, but they all shot at once, and now he is not, you are acting as if it were an act of nature from that point onwards.

@MiketheMoose3k @lporiginalg ... like the responsibility from that last vote simply vanishes since they don't know who it was. You are taking the execution by firing squad approach at this as if it were a moral approach and not merely a manner to ease the minds of the men doing the shooting, one of them ...

FTFY

@MiketheMoose3k @lporiginalg There is even a case in which its not just PD*LGD but Expected Loss as a whole, separating the subjectivety from Y from any form of Objective Loss that can be accounted for in EAD (Exposure at Default), seeing as it goes much beyond "mere" sentimentality.

@MiketheMoose3k @lporiginalg However, in non sequential play, the correct weight modelling is not Red = 1, it would have to be closer to Red = X - Y*PD*LGD, with X being weight on indiviual life, Y on other lives, PD - Probability of Default and LGD - Loss Given Default. Which is unsolvable since ...

@MiketheMoose3k @lporiginalg ... your worldview directly into your modeling. There is no reason as to why surviving must count as a point while social interactions must be disregarded for a game theory model, thats just poor modeling. Mass societal losses will be felt in any individual scale.

@MiketheMoose3k @lporiginalg ... X and Y are both individual weights for each entity, and hence not all obtainable on moment of decision. The point is, you assume it to be solvable because for you individually Y = 0, but there is no logical reason to be so for all. You are just inserting ...

@MiketheMoose3k @lporiginalg I was doing a posteriori analysis in this case, nothing sequential in it, my point is precisely that it doesn't have to be sequential to get to these conclusions. Is there a diference in the responsibility from the last voter in the tie break and the first one?

@songbirdsoaring @OUnderfolder @lporiginalg BUT, the cases don't allign at all. Your vote is yet another knudge in a bundle that force fed the man the drugs to begin with. Had no knudges ocurred there would be no ODing. Its not because its distributed responsibility that it stops being responsibility.

@songbirdsoaring @OUnderfolder @lporiginalg Indiferent to the legality of it all. Yes, being reasonibly within capability to assist and to not do so out of malice or negligence, is directly participating in the death. I will grant it though that in the button dillema it is much harder to determine proportionality.