Pressing the blue button is ethically justifiable, while pressing the red button is not
The first member to accept the challenge becomes the contender.
Debate will be automatically deleted in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
If you're not familiar with the hypothetical that was recently popularized online, it goes like this:
Everyone on Earth is presented with a choice between two buttons, and they have to press one. There is a blue button and a red button. If >50% of people choose the blue button, everyone lives. If >50% choose the red button, only people who chose the red button live, and everyone else dies immediately after the last choice.
For the sake of this, I'll be assuming that each person must make their choice within a reasonably short amount of time (less than 1 day), and that the choices of people who are fundamentally unable to choose in time are either averaged out between both choices or disqualified.
Since any definitive goal of ethics is controversial, I'll be assuming that the well-being of sentient individuals is good, while the lack of it and the suffering of sentient individuals is evil. If you're not willing to agree that this or something similar is the goal, then the debate will not be productive.