For morals, yeah, I’d do it, without much thought. Not because I’m arrogant enough to think I’m 100% right on everything. But because my morals are specifically malleable enough that they can adapt to different situations and new information.
Ideological beliefs are harder, but I think I’d do it. Maybe with more time I’d second guess myself, but not in 2 minutes. I know I’d feel awful not having had the power to make the world so much better with the moral thing (as I just eliminated crime, the poor, and so much other stuff) just because I couldn’t decide for sure on the ideology.
Hell, with my ideology and morals, I could probably find a loophole that would let people change their ideology back as long as it doesn’t hurt people. But I suspect that would count as fighting the hypothetical.
It is my heartfelt belief that I am uniquely suited to be Supreme Spiritual Fiscal and Worldly Emperor of All Known Domains. It would be a categorical violation to deprive others of my benevolent rule and I trust you will see things my way after I press the button.
It’d be awfully hard to say no, if you’re a decent person – think about it… one pull of the switch, and no more sexual abuse of children! No more rape. No more murder. No more torture. No more ethnic cleansing. No more of so, so many very, very bad things.
I’m not sure if that makes it okay, but it would make it awfully tempting. How many sexually abused children could you really look at and say “No, I didn’t press the switch that would have prevented your abuse, because…”?
Yes, to morals. Not because I want everyone to be like me but because it would save the planet from human beings. Immediately, everyone would be appalled at using fossil fuels to do anything at all. They would all feel the pain of the grass and the trees, the dying of the birds, the last cries of extinguished species, as though it was their own.
Fascist autocrats would just leave their keys on the desk and walk out of their fortresses bewildered by what they used to be. And no one would gun them down as they leave because who would want to do that to another human being?
Do people know that they share morality with others? Basically, do they then know that people in different circumstances aren’t there due to moral failings / differing ideology?
I think hundreds of millions of people just starved to death.
Not having divine omniscience, HELL NO. No one individual has ANY right to control the mind of even one other, much less robbing all humanity of free will and free thought.
The tough part is the “same ideological beliefs as me”. There is room in the world for a variety of reasonable ideologies, all of which have their strengths and weaknesses.
But on the “morals” part, if that was the only determinant, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. There are far, far too many people in this world with little or no empathy for their fellow humans, or for the animals with whom they share the planet and its resources. Unbounded greed is rampant – no matter how much someone has, it seems to be common that they always want more, seemingly without limit. If they owned the entire planet, they’d want the moon, too. And they’d strive to get it no matter how much their fellow creatures suffered.
I am no saint – none of us are. But I’ve never willingly hurt anyone, cheated anyone, robbed anyone, or intentionally hurt anyone in any other way. Unless you count the two times (I think) that I walked out of a grocery store accidentally forgetting to scan something at the self-checkout. But when the receptionist at my vet’s forgot to charge me for a large bag of dog food, a fairly high-ticket item involving a fairly small business, I went back the next day and paid for it. The world would be a better place with some moral standards and the elimination of criminality.
No, but morality is always at the core of the issue. If criminal behaviour is driven by desperate economic necessity, then the moral problems may lie not so much with the criminal as with the higher echelons of the ruling classes that lack empathy and moral values.
I can imagine myself pushing the button and that would be the wrong choice. As xtenkfarpl notes, 2 minutes is a too short amount of time: honestly 2 days or 2 weeks is too short as well. Say another Deity offers me a pocket dimension to contemplate The Button: time outside the dimension stays still while I complete my investigation. I am provided access to the Interdimensional Library, with descriptions of the next 100 years of history if I do push the button and 100 years if I don’t (there’s an automatic memory wipe after I leave the premises, except of course for my decision and a brief description of my reasoning). Under those circumstances I’d consider pressing the button.
I’d have to think hard about whether even sizable advantages to button pressing (assuming they exist - which isn’t 100% clear) are worth the gross violation of human rights. Assuming that’s the mechanism: the button may merely be a portal transferring me to another parallel universe for all I know.
Not only would I push it, I would encourage about half the population to push it if they got the chance. That half has better than average morality, and it’s really the worst 1% of people, lacking in morals, that fuck it up the most for the rest of us.
I mean, think about if Trump got a moral code. Any moral code. What about Kim Jong Un? What if the leaders of the Taliban suddenly had their moral code replaced with one that didn’t call for keeping girls out of school? What if Putin got a code that meant invading other countries was bad?
Failing to press the button means that a lot of avoidable suffering and death occurs.