That still doesn’t rule out people with a moral calculus different than your own. You are condemning half of the people posting in this thread.
I consider it to be unnecessarily sanctimonious to pretend that it does.
The OP says that Polls show a bias toward red. You’re not going to save anyone by pressing blue. Not even yourself.
The fact that you’re all refusing to put an estimate on it is very telling.
In the “no one has to die scenario” you keep proposing, what do you think is more realistically achievable?
100% of 8 billion people on Earth all pick red
50%+1 pick blue?
Neither scenario will happen. A greater percentage will always pick RED. It doesn’t matter how self righteous you feel pressing the suicide button, the result will be the same.
You keep looking at the two impossible scenarios “50% + 1 Blue” and “100 RED”. The polls show the most likely result will be ~60% RED. The logical choice is RED. If everyone uses logic to make their choice, then everyone will live. Those with misguided self-righteousness will die. All of them.
50%+1 blue is not impossible at all. It’s a very realistic scenario. The polls you’re talking about are probably the same WEIRD bias as any psychological poll. Biased towards western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (and usually young and male) These are the people at the far end of the individualistic societal scale. Do you think in China or in Japan 60% of people are picking red? 50%+1 blue is realistic and I suspect would probably happen in a real world global implementation of this hypothetical.
What would never, ever happen is 100% red. That is a complete non-starter. The fact that you keep saying “no one HAS to die” over and over again is a-priori rationalization you’re using so that you can blame the victims in that you kill in this hypothetical. Well, they didn’t have to die, they chose to die. That’s not your fault! Not only that, but you believe that the only reason a person would pick blue would be to be sanctimonious. “Mis-guided self-righteousness” is the only reason someone would pick the option where no one has to die? You can’t think of any other reason someone would choose blue?
But let’s say you’re right, and the polls say 60% red – is that your estimate? 40% of people in the world die? 3.3 billion people when we could’ve all lived if people had taken the simple, obvious answer? You certainly can’t say “no one has to die” and accept that 3.3 billion people will die and think there’s no contradiction there.
You are showing all sorts of signs of emotionally justifying your decision while claiming that you have arrived at the only logical answer. “Well, no one has to die” is something you tell yourself so that anyone who does die is their own fault and off your conscience, even though you know realistically many people have to die if more than half the world thinks like you do. You would absolutely be taking part in condemning those people to death.
Furthermore, obviously given your reluctance/refusal to actually acknowledge that your decision would be part of the collective decision to kill billions, you’re not at ease with owning that. I’ll tell you this - if I was going to choose red, I would own it. I wouldn’t pussyfoot around and refuse to estimate how many people I think would die. But since you’re uncomfortable with owning it, you know there’s something unpleasant about your position. Your attempt to give yourself moral superiority is then to paint people who would make the pro-social non-harmful choice an ulterior, more evil motive: they’re all santimonious and self-righteous. They’re choosing to kill themselves because they want to flaunt how morally superior they are. This is an attempt to give yourself the upper hand morally. There’s no problem with you choosing the result that will kill 3.3 billion people when none had to die, it’s a problem with those sanctimonious 3.3 billion people that are all going to commit suicide to show off to everyone how righteous they are.
Just because you’ve found a logical argument doesn’t mean you’ve found the logical argument. People can logically come to different conclusions, and thinking that you’ve come to the only logical conclusion on a complex issue is a sign of flawed thinking.
There are only two reasons that I can think of for anyone pushing the red button.
- There is no other life that you value above your own.
- You are 100% sure that those whose lives you value above your own will make the same decision you have.
Whatever the number, they killed themselves. I. Don’t. Care. I am not responsible for their irrational decision. I am not pussy footing around or avoiding the question. I don’t know the number of blue. But it won’t be 50%+1. If 49% kill themselves, I will not lose any sleep.
So, in a nutshell, fuck everyone who voted altruistically.
You could have saved a lot of pixels if you had just started with that.
Or reason 3: I am nearly certain that 50%+1 will not choose Blue. So, even if I love many people, then either a) majority choose blue, so they live; or b) majority choose red, in which case there is nothing I can do for them. Dying myself doesnt help them. I hope they choose red.
Self-destructively. Not altruistically.
Not really. I don’t care because I don’t feel responsible. You think I don’t care because I’m evil or selfish. So, it doesn’t really help to progress the discussion to make me admit to the number of deaths or whatever. I dont care what the number is because I am not responsible. They are. Individually.
The heart of the debate is whether red is responsible for the death of blue. I don’t think they are. Im nearly certain the Blue will all die, though. They wont get the majority. And if they do, my choice also doesnt hurt them. So, voting red does no harm to me or anyone. Voting Blue kills myself. Easy choice.
3.3 billion people all up and decided to kill themselves one day, and not a single one thought they were doing the right thing for the best outcome for everyone?
Of course it does. You have part of the vote that decided it. This is the same logic of “my vote doesn’t matter because it didn’t not single handedly swing the election”, that doesn’t mean that your vote doesn’t matter.
You may also want to look into Kant’s universalization principle.
You seem really upset about this. It’s just a game theory puzzle. Nobody is dying.
It’s a social dilemma. Real world damage is done by people with the attitude you’re expressing every day.
This is nothing like an election. Everyone has to live with the results of an election. In this scenario, either you pick blue and die or you pick red and live. In an election, people who voted differently have to endure a result different than they preferred. In this puzzle, if the goal is living, then I get to live regardless of whether the majority of people voted the same as me or not. My vote takes nothing from them. As I said, it isnt the prisoners’ delimma. It doesnt matter what others choose. We xan all chose the option that gives us the greatest outcome. We can all live.
How do 3.3 billion people die if no one votes red?
Collectively, the red votes kill them. Of course it matters what others choose.