I think, given the way the question is phrased, that you DO know, because you are being given the option of changing history - if you don’t press the button today, history doesn’t change, so Trump didn’t get a second term (at least not yet ::shudder::).
I don’t think I would press the button - not because I’m comfortable with the ravages of Covid, but because another Trump presidency could cause damage exceeding that done by Covid, and I don’t think that stopping one global pandemic is going to change the course of epidemiological history in the longer run.
I’m not a scientist so you can take what I say with a grain of salt, but AIUI, some form of global pandemic is inevitable. We were going to face a challenge like Covid no matter what, and we will face another, and another, most likely - but Covid was our first chance for us to learn from our mistakes.* Changing history to eliminate Covid would only be pushing the consequences of such a virus into the future, not eliminating those consequences.
Or at least, that’s my spontaneous response. But having been allotted 2 minutes to think, I’d use them. No sense in pressing the button impulsively, then thinking, “oh shit, I didn’t think of …”
*at least, with all the modern science and technology theoretically at our disposal. The 1918 flu pandemic was somewhat instructive, but it occurred at a time with far less medical and scientific knowledge and capabilities.
I don’t agree those are equal, though. When I’m pressing the button, I’m directly causing Trump to win the election and COVID-19 to not exist. But not pressing the button didn’t make Trump lose, nor did it create COVID-19. Those would occur even if the button never existed.
Plus, if I never press the button, I can always tell myself that it wouldn’t have actually worked, which is fairly easy to believe since there isn’t any known way it could work. But if I press it and it works, I know for certain that I caused these things to happen.
It’s weird to me how this changes my answer relative to the trolley problem. I think it’s because I know for sure what my action or inaction will cause, and the know exactly what outcome I am responsible for. I know for sure that pulling the switch will save 5. And then my responsibility ends–one of them could go on to murder 10 people, and it wouldn’t be my fault. I know that not pulling the level will result in 5 deaths, even if it turns out that one guy would have gone on to cure cancer.
I believe that a huge part of moral responsibility is in having the information. We have so little information about what will happen if we press the button that I feel the moral responsibility in not doing so is much less.
I knew way too many people who died and more who were affected by Covid. I would push the button without hesitation.
Trump’s enemies give him way too much credit. He wasn’t very effective even when the republicans held both houses. Not the place nor do I want to have another Trump debate. I would save the seven million.
I’d push it, yes. Covid inflicted serious damage on my life - not so much physically (although there was some of that too) but it ruined a great deal of things.
The main thing I’d dislike from Trump 2020 reelection is that Ukraine would be toast.
Me too, and right away. I might prioritize the needs of my own country, but not to that extent.
Also, I think Trump losing in 2020 sets him up to probably win in 2024.
But if I did hesitate to press, during my hesitation I’d realize that participating in the button is an insult to democracy, and walk away. As for that walk-away sending millions to their deaths, of course, it wouldn’t, because the alleged button is fake.
Covid was not a world existential threat; maybe a second term of Trump wouldn’t have been either, but I don’t know that and I can imagine many ways it could have been.
Speeding up climate change to irreversible tipping points.
Encouraging even greater Russian aggression which would eventually lead to responses that would escalate into Armageddon in years not too future.
And as has been pointed out - no pandemic this time is the hypothetical but there assuredly will be other ones down the pike. We have learned with Covid and are less Ill prepared for for future threats.
Pressing the button makes me culpable if the outcome ends up worse, the next threat not responded to as well as it will be now, a world war not prevented by the current world response to Russian expansionism, climate tipping hit faster and without preparation … so on. None assured to happen but would be on my head.
A second term of Trump with a natural uncontestable end is a small price to pay for a world without Covid. I think he would have fizzled out.
Looking at the the relative number of deaths in similar countries there seems little likelihood that a change of president would save any substantial proportion of USA lives.
Also, I don’t particularly value USA lives or USA political stability over the welfare of the rest of the world
Zooming specifically on Ukraine in particular - one problem with a bad president is that, while Congress may be able to restrain him from doing bad things, Congress cannot compel him to do good things.
A reelected President Trump could have sat on his hands and said “I won’t lift a finger to help Ukraine; let Putin Final-Solution the Ukes” and there is zilch Congress could have done about it. They could have impeached him, but again, the odds of getting 2/3 of the Senate to convict a sitting president is mighty tough, especially since Trump would have technically not done anything illegal by refusing to help Ukraine.
Regarding Ukraine, Russia was relatively quiet during Trump’s presidency. Who knows if that would have continued? But Putin notably moved very aggresively during the Democrat incumbancy either side of Trump.
The chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal most likely contributed to Putin’s Ukraine calculations and we can’t know if the same would have happened under Trump.
Then again, we might consider that Putin’s overreach in Ukraine may actually turn out to be a net good to the world when the dust ultimately settles.
The calculus gets very complicated very quickly (which is a perfectly good reason for not pushing the button)
Biden didn’t surge and clean up prior to the pull-out, nor did nearly anyone in the chain of command change, and nor did the timing of it change all that much from what Trump seemed to be planning.
I can’t think of any particular reason to think that the military would have done it more cleanly under Trump than they did under Biden. It was all the same folk, working on the same timeline, with the same resources.
Personally, I think the main triggers were:
Ukraine was bulking up its defensive capacity in a hurry, and any longer delay would have securely put it out of the running.
Putin spent a lot of the pandemic in isolation and - like people do when they’re isolated from the world from a long time - got a bit obsessive and overthought the problem.
Trump’s presidency helped to convince him of the frailty of democracies, and - from that - he convinced himself that the outside world would be largely ineffectual at helping Ukraine and that he’d be able to fracture support.
Too much of a derail to go into this in detail but for this point at least, Putin had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 with a democrat president in the White House and the world did not intervene in any meaningful way. This is along with other invasions in prior periods with other flavours of government and equally lukewarm responses.
He already had all the evidence he needed that a meaningful response from the rest of the world was unlikely. I doubt the 2016-2020 period much changed that thinking one way or the other.