Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6737
Pressing the blue button is ethically justifiable, while pressing the red button is not
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
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.
Round 1
Forfeited
I am assuming that each individual person that has to take this decision is forced to think logically. I think this assumption is fair since his life, and the life of others depend on it. Then this basically becomes a logical puzzle.
Examining the scenarios from the perspective of an individual:
- He presses the blue button:
- and most press the blue button -> he lives
- and most press the red button -> he dies
- He presses the red button
- and most press the blue button -> he lives
- and most press the red button -> he lives
If everyone thinks logically, everyone lives by pressing the red button. Pressing the red button gives you a 100% probability of surviving, no matter who you are. Pressing the blue button is totally illogical.
That being said, a person that makes the choice still has to think about protecting the illogical people, that might act driven by emotions, or are unable to think analyze the problem at hand and make the logical choice for whatever reason. However, he also has to think analytically and make an educated guess about his chances of survival. I argue that pressing the blue button would give him very slim chances, because pressing the red button is both the logical and the egoistic choice.
In conclusion, pressing the blue button could be viewed as an altruistic attempt to save the illogical people, but I also argue that pressing the red button is not unethical. That's because an individual has the right to want to survive, and in this case he is not exactly doing it at the expense of others. He is just not willing to sacrifice himself for slightly increasing the chances of saving people who make the wrong choice.
Round 2
This argument fails for several reasons. You were correct in identifying what the buttons do, but you're essentially presupposing that your position is the correct one when you repeatedly call pressing red button the "logical" choice. The issue with the surface level understanding that "pressing the red button gives you a 100% probability of surviving" is that you surviving is the not the only relevant factor. As I said in the description, the goal is going to be the total well-being of all individuals. When you consider this, you'll realize that your own survival is only one tiny fraction of the picture. Now, you did (at least partially) consider this when you said that "...a person that makes the choice still has to think about protecting the illogical people, that might act driven by emotions, or are unable to think analyze the problem at hand and make the logical choice for whatever reason." There lies an internal contradiction with this. Firstly, you stated it's the logical choice to simply protect yourself. Then, you said one still "has to think about" protecting others in some way. (Also, I would say this protection should extend to all people, not just "irrational" ones) In other words, you have simultaneously claimed it is logical to consider only yourself, but that one "has to" (in other words, that it is also logical to) consider others. You cannot have it both ways without more elaboration.
Next, you stated that, "pressing the red button is both the logical and the egoistic choice." But, you can't have this both ways, either. If the goal is the well-being of individuals, then egoism is by no means "logical". Egoistic thinking can be relatively common, but that does not automatically make it logical. To defend the claim that protecting just yourself is the "logical" choice, you would need to show how this kind of behavior would necessarily outperform more cooperative measures in this context.
Next, you stated that, "pressing the red button is both the logical and the egoistic choice." But, you can't have this both ways, either. If the goal is the well-being of individuals, then egoism is by no means "logical". Egoistic thinking can be relatively common, but that does not automatically make it logical. To defend the claim that protecting just yourself is the "logical" choice, you would need to show how this kind of behavior would necessarily outperform more cooperative measures in this context.
Finally, you claim that "...pressing the red button is not unethical. That's because an individual has the right to want to survive, and in this case he is not exactly doing it at the expense of others. He is just not willing to sacrifice himself for slightly increasing the chances of saving people who make the wrong choice." This is the most egregious section thus far. Whether an individual "has the right to want to survive" is irrelevant. We are discussing ethics, not rights. You could try to argue that rights necessarily derive from ethics, but that would be a very separate and impossible debate for you. Much more importantly, you claim that someone, in pressing the red button, "is not exactly doing it at the expense of others". Would you mind explaining this? Actually, there's no need. This is a very simple matter. Let's say that everyone except for one person has chosen a button and that the buttons are tied so far. If the last person chooses red, then about half of people die. If not, then everyone lives. So in this case, and potentially in many others, I would say that the red button does produce real consequences for others, including dying. And, I would say that dying is indeed a sort of "expense" you can undergo. So, it is simply false that it's "not exactly" at the expense of others, because that would only be true if blue gets the majority. Then, you say someone, in choosing red, "is just not willing to sacrifice himself for slightly increasing the chances of saving people who make the wrong choice." But, you haven't established that blue is the "wrong" choice or that red is the "logical" choice, you've only asserted that they are.
As for why blue is the logical choice rather than red, it is simple. You justify red by initially claiming that, "If everyone thinks logically, everyone lives by pressing the red button." Now, this justification fails for a very simple reason. The same goes for blue. Yes, if everyone choose blue, everyone lives. This seems quite logical to me. But, the reason it is even more logical than choosing red is because you don't need every single person to choose blue to save everyone. You only need >50%. It's still not a guarantee, but it is far more likely than everyone unanimously choosing either option, and so it is the only ethically (and logically) justifiable choice.
Let's speak in practical terms, to actually compare what strategy is most likely to produce results and saves people. That's what matters at the end. You can be an idealist and feel good for pressing the blue button, but if this will most likely result in you dying, and all people that you persuaded to do the same also dying, then it's definitely not the most ethical choice, but rather an idiotic one.
Humanity surviving through the path of pressing the blue button: This would require a massive worldwide agreement which is impossible in 1 day. The chances of surviving this way is in my opinion are very close to 0%. Given the survival instinct and the human nature in general, do you really believe families would not agree between themselves to all press the red button and survive 100% together? That most people than not will blindfold trust that a common worldwide agreement made in 1 day will be honored (assuming media will say that's the plan)? And who will orchestrate this? Imagine the confusion that day, social media bursting with arguments. What will most people end up doing in a moment of panic? Pressing the blue button is only logical if you believe that most people in the world are pure altruists. Actually more than that. You would have to be convinced that most people don't care at all about themselves.
Humanity surviving through the path of pressing the red button: At this point let me restate my main argument that is that pressing the red button gives everyone individually a 100% probability of surviving. It's not just you who is making the choice. Everyone knows the rules. Now think about this as a strategy communicated in the media and/or agreed between families or any other kind of group. It's infinitely easier to follow. This makes it the simplest and most direct strategy for everyone to survive. Yes, there will be casualties, but limited to a very small minority of extreme idealists who refuse to think logically and prefer to die in honor of their altruism. I would even argue that by not following the plan they would be committing suicide effectively, which might not be the most ethical thing to do.
Given the two choices, I really think that the authorities would advocate for the red button plan, because it's the wisest choice after carefully considering the rules and the probabilities of outcomes, unless of course they are evil and want to reduce the world population or something.
Round 3
I may have forgotten to mention this, but the choices are private. There is no open coordination in this hypothetical.
You said, "Humanity surviving through the path of pressing the blue button: This would require a massive worldwide agreement which is impossible in 1 day."
This wouldn't require any sort of "agreement". If it's so unreasonable to believe that most people could all happen to choose blue, one could also argue it would also be unreasonable for most people to choose red. You're applying a double standard that you haven't justified. Then, you say, "The chances of surviving this way is in my opinion are very close to 0%." We aren't here just to discuss opinions, we're here to derive a logical and ethical choice. Much of what you said after this was based on the possibility of open coordination, but I am arguing for blue without open coordination, and I would say if it were allowed it would complicate the hypothetical but not necessarily in a way that makes blue a worse choice. After, you say, "Pressing the blue button is only logical if you believe that most people in the world are pure altruists. Actually more than that. You would have to be convinced that most people don't care at all about themselves." But, this isn't true for a very simple reason. Pressing the blue may not guarantee your own immediate survival, but it is still self interested. The reason why is that if blue loses, it's possible that hundreds of millions or billions would die. This could very well collapse the economy and more. Preventing that can be understood not just as altruism but also as egoistic thinking, which you assumed was logical before.
Next, you say,
"Humanity surviving through the path of pressing the red button: At this point let me restate my main argument that is that pressing the red button gives everyone individually a 100% probability of surviving." and"This makes it the simplest and most direct strategy for everyone to survive."
But, I showed that blue does the same.
I believe the key point to our debate and what I want to comment on is: "Pressing the blue may not guarantee your own immediate survival, but it is still self interested. The reason why is that if blue loses, it's possible that hundreds of millions or billions would die".
First of all, the phrase "blue loses" doesn't make sense. There is no "blue loses" or "red loses". I mean, what would even constitute as "red loses"? The only result is the survival rate of humanity which will be in the range of 50%-100%. Your argument doesn't consider any other, intermediate result.
Note that it's impossible by definition for more than 50% to die, since the only way to die is by pressing the blue button, and if more than 50% do that, then nobody dies. My argument is that pressing the blue button is a bet with huge risk because the more people that press it, the more people die, unless of course more than half press it. On the other hand, pressing the red button is a much safer choice, not just for the person pressing it, but for humanity as a total, because it steadily increases the survival rate by one count, by immediately saving one person.
To put it in more rigorous terms, let's say that person X simply can't know or make any useful guess about what button other people will press. Let's assume that for the purposes of this argument, the votes of others are completely random to him, with homogeneous probability distribution (every other person is exactly 50% likely to pick either button). Then:
- If he presses the blue button: he has a 50% probability of surviving himself and increases the probability of survival of people who press the blue button by ~0.0000000001%.
- If he presses the red button: he has a 100% probability of surviving himself, and decreases the probability of survival of people who press the blue button by ~0.0000000001%.
The asymmetry is clear here, and it's not about the absolute numbers, it's about the absoluteness of the mechanics of the blue button. That is, the fact that your contribution takes effect only if more people than not also press the blue button. You are basically letting a coin flip decide your faith (50%), and not saving anyone, or saving the people who press the blue button (again 50%). By the way I emphasize that. You are not even contributing to the survival of all humanity. Pressing the blue button only protects people who choose blue, because people who choose red are already protected.
Next, I still insist that the wisest thing to do in practice is to take into account the human nature, the survival instinct, and what history has taught as about human behavior, in order to make an educated guess about the probabilities of surviving by pressing the blue button. This alone in my opinion vastly stacks the odds against the blue button and shifts the probability of surviving from 50% to a number much lower than that. Therefore an individual has even less incentive to make that choice. Without being able to communicate, and with the chances stacked up against you, it's simply the wisest choice to save yourself and hope that everyone does the same.
Lastly I would like to point out that this is very similar to the prisoner's dilemma, which teaches us that:
Players fail to reach the globally optimal outcome because individual self-interest always incentivizes betrayal (defection) over cooperation. Rational decisions, made independently, force both players into a stable, suboptimal trap known as the Nash Equilibrium.
Similarly to the case of the prisoner's dilemma, what most people fail to see is that pressing the red button is not an offensive move, but rather a defensive one, because you simply can't possibly trust that half of humanity will go along with that plan. This is true even if communication is allowed, but arguably even more true when it's not.
Round 4
Obviously, when I say red or blue "loses", I mean that they did not get the majority of the vote, so the condition tied to the other occurs.
The first issue with your argument is the following, "My argument is that pressing the blue button is a bet with huge risk because the more people that press it, the more people die, unless of course more than half press it. On the other hand, pressing the red button is a much safer choice, not just for the person pressing it, but for humanity as a total, because it steadily increases the survival rate by one count, by immediately saving one person." This is only true if you assume that red will certainly be the majority regardless of what you do. However, the choices people make have real consequences, and they can include making blue get the majority of votes. If you're trying to discuss which is safer for everyone, then blue is mathematically twice as safe. This is because >50% of people's choices is more feasible than anything more than that, especially 100%. While blue puts yourself at risk, it doesn't risk anyone besides yourself. While red saves yourself, it doesn't save anyone else. However, blue contributes to saving every person while red contributes to risking everyone who chooses blue. So, in a structural sense, blue is safer if you're considering humanity on a collective scale. Of course, you might think something along these lines, "if people didn't pick blue, they wouldn't be in a position for red to risk them in the first place!", but, the logic goes both ways. If no one picked red, then people who pick blue wouldn't be at risk. It might help if you thought about it this way. Rather than thinking something like "what should I press", think something more like "what should most people press". If you had to decide which button would be best for most people to choose, then the obvious choice would be blue since no one would die. Of course, you cannot guarantee what most people will pick, but you can contribute to it, and when people tend to think this way while acknowledging the correct priorities, it makes blue much more likely. We are trying to discuss what is ethical for people in general to pick. In other words, we are discussing an obligation that applies to all individuals, not just you. So, you should consider the effects that your ethical prescription has not just in individual cases but in the entire hypothetical.
Then, you say the following, "To put it in more rigorous terms, let's say that person X simply can't know or make any useful guess about what button other people will press. Let's assume that for the purposes of this argument, the votes of others are completely random to him, with homogeneous probability distribution (every other person is exactly 50% likely to pick either button). Then:
- If he presses the blue button: he has a 50% probability of surviving himself and increases the probability of survival of people who press the blue button by ~0.0000000001%.
- If he presses the red button: he has a 100% probability of surviving himself, and decreases the probability of survival of people who press the blue button by ~0.0000000001%."
There are multiple issues with this. This decimal is too small, but even if it were exactly correct, the way you have set this up produces incoherent results. With what you've done, the difference between 50% and the increased or decreased odds of blue surviving is exactly the percentage of people who chose the respective option subtracted by 50%. In other words, if 75% of people vote blue, your math suggests there is a 75% chance that those who chose blue survive even though their survival was already guaranteed by >50%. Specific probabilities like what you tried are impossible because of the step function involved. That decimal is also misleading when you abstract from the scale of the hypothetical. You're promoting the idea that everyone should choose red, so if they did, the probability of survival they'd be impacting would be all 100% in total.
Here is what I would say is a more useful way frame this mathematically.
Every person who chooses blue risks 1 person and potentially saves people ranging from 1 to ~4 billion.
Every person who chooses red saves 1 person and risks people ranging from 0 to ~4 billion.
Every person who chooses blue risks 1 person and potentially saves people ranging from 1 to ~4 billion.
Every person who chooses red saves 1 person and risks people ranging from 0 to ~4 billion.
If the goal is 0 deaths: Blue is twice as efficient. 0 deaths is possible via two conditions. Either blue gets >50%, or red gets 100%. As you noted, the latter is unlikely. So, a vote for blue is a vote for a condition with about half the requirement.
Now, for the real question, if the goal is simply the fewest deaths: Blue is still more efficient, but it gets imprecise. The reason blue is more efficient is because whatever the efficient choice may be, it is to be promoted as the logical and ethical choice, it is to be assumed as the common choice, and it will tend to be thought of in this manner upon careful consideration. After applying these qualities to both buttons, the difference is vast:
If 20% blue and 80% red, about 1.6 billion die.
If 40% blue and 60% red, about 3.4 billion die.
Yet:
If 60% blue and 40% red, none die.
If 80% blue and 20% red, none die.
So, the conclusion that red is ethical, that people should generally pick it, is also the one that maximizes death. Only if an astronomically high percentage of people pick red can mass death be avoided with a red majority. Red only makes sense if you assume red will get the majority, but you cannot verify that beforehand. Since you can't, and by working without strong assumptions, working with which choice should get the majority, one would necessarily derive blue as the ethical choice.
You then go on to say the following, "That is, the fact that your contribution takes effect only if more people than not also press the blue button. You are basically letting a coin flip decide your faith (50%), and not saving anyone, or saving the people who press the blue button (again 50%). By the way I emphasize that. You are not even contributing to the survival of all humanity. Pressing the blue button only protects people who choose blue, because people who choose red are already protected."
Firstly, it's not true that your contribution only takes effect if blue gets a majority. Contributions are always partial even if there is a specific threshold in this hypothetical. Red, which would only be a good choice (cutting losses) if red is certainly the majority's choice, would not be lacking in its contribution of decreasing the odds that those who choose blue survive under the general acceptance of your logic, helping ensure that it shouldn't be and, therefore, that the presupposition underlying the supposed necessity in choosing it is unsubstantiated.
Secondly, you mention that, "You are not even contributing to the survival of all humanity" because "people who choose red are already protected." However, this isn't the only way to frame it. Conversely, people who choose red cannot save themselves any more than those who choose blue can save them if blue gets the majority (as they'd be safe with either choice), just as those who choose blue cannot risk themselves any more than those who choose red can risk them if blue gets the minority (as both types of choices contributed to their death). So, the reason blue cannot save 8 billion lives is because only half of people can die due to these buttons, but the consequence of everyone surviving is only adequately fulfilled through the blue button.
You then say, "Next, I still insist that the wisest thing to do in practice is to take into account the human nature, the survival instinct, and what history has taught as about human behavior, in order to make an educated guess about the probabilities of surviving by pressing the blue button. This alone in my opinion vastly stacks the odds against the blue button and shifts the probability of surviving from 50% to a number much lower than that. Therefore an individual has even less incentive to make that choice. Without being able to communicate, and with the chances stacked up against you, it's simply the wisest choice to save yourself and hope that everyone does the same." Humans are a naturally cooperative species. If people necessarily acted based only on the concept of their immediate survival, then society as we know it would not have formed. But, once again, if you're attempted to invoke our egoistic tendencies, you need to consider that mass death would affect even those who survive. Economies would collapse, public services would potentially be discontinued. Wars, revolutions, and crime could surge. Even people who only care about themselves might not like that to happen.
You then say, "Next, I still insist that the wisest thing to do in practice is to take into account the human nature, the survival instinct, and what history has taught as about human behavior, in order to make an educated guess about the probabilities of surviving by pressing the blue button. This alone in my opinion vastly stacks the odds against the blue button and shifts the probability of surviving from 50% to a number much lower than that. Therefore an individual has even less incentive to make that choice. Without being able to communicate, and with the chances stacked up against you, it's simply the wisest choice to save yourself and hope that everyone does the same." Humans are a naturally cooperative species. If people necessarily acted based only on the concept of their immediate survival, then society as we know it would not have formed. But, once again, if you're attempted to invoke our egoistic tendencies, you need to consider that mass death would affect even those who survive. Economies would collapse, public services would potentially be discontinued. Wars, revolutions, and crime could surge. Even people who only care about themselves might not like that to happen.
Finally, you state, "Lastly I would like to point out that this is very similar to the prisoner's dilemma, which teaches us that:
Players fail to reach the globally optimal outcome because individual self-interest always incentivizes betrayal (defection) over cooperation. Rational decisions, made independently, force both players into a stable, suboptimal trap known as the Nash Equilibrium.
Similarly to the case of the prisoner's dilemma, what most people fail to see is that pressing the red button is not an offensive move, but rather a defensive one, because you simply can't possibly trust that half of humanity will go along with that plan. This is true even if communication is allowed, but arguably even more true when it's not."
The prisoner's dilemma is incomparable to this hypothetical for several reasons. But, before that, you seem to once again be promoting the idea of individual self-interest when the whole point is protecting all individuals. However, the most egregious claim you made was "that pressing the red button is not an offensive move, but rather a defensive one". This isn't true for a very simple reason. As I have shown before, the buttons do have real consequences. Those consequences include people living and dying, including those beyond yourself. While red saves yourself (and can therefore be considered defensive), it also risks those who choose blue, meaning that it is also offensive. However, these labels are irrelevant as we should be evaluating what the buttons actually do. If you "can't possibly trust that half of humanity will go along with that plan" in the context of choosing blue, then that would mean you can trust that half of humanity will go along with the plan of choosing red. But, if people were necessarily so trustworthy, then it would be more efficient to direct such coordination toward blue.
Here is every reason that the prisoner's dilemma is incomparable. The scale in terms of the of the content of the "others" in terms of the amount of people involved and the stakes becomes more relevant in the button hypothetical (one person being put in jail for several years is likely not as personally significant to most people as the possibility of billions dying). In the prisoner's dilemma, cooperation and defection are notably quite asymmetric (failed defection is much closer to successful defection than failed cooperation is to successful cooperation, and successful defection is superior to successful cooperation for the one succeeding). The prisoner's dilemma is relatively ethically inconsequential, in fact, one could argue the criminals should be punished. The button hypothetical forces us to invoke ethics. And, you haven't succeeded.
First of all I agree with your framing and should have probably put it this way myself:
Every person who chooses blue risks 1 person and potentially saves people ranging from 1 to ~4 billion.Every person who chooses red saves 1 person and risks people ranging from 0 to ~4 billion.
About what you said next:
Now, for the real question, if the goal is simply the fewest deaths.
Let's agree that this is the real question. If every life is of equal value, then saving everyone is not infinitely more valuable than saving most. The most important thing is to minimize expected losses.
Allow me to rephrase what I understand your argument is. We can see this is the following graph: Put on the x axis the number of people who press the blue button and on the y axis the number of people who die. Then it's obvious that if you purely think about this is terms of the area, then pressing the blue button minimizes deaths, as you very well put, by half.
But the problem with this framing is that it completely disregards the uncertainty of the problem, and assumes that every scenario is equally plausible. This is simply not true.
Ultimately I believe it's unfair to say that this is a decision should be made purely on ethics, exactly because it involves so much uncertainty, not only of the outcome, but of the problem as a whole. I believe it is more about belief than ethics.
There are 3 kind of beliefs that change the ethics of the decision:
- Has faith in humanity. If someone is convinced that the majority of humans trust humanity as a whole to press the blue button, then it's only natural for him to press the blue button to realize his conviction. In this case pressing the red button is unjustifiable.
- Does not have faith in humanity. If someone is convinced that the majority of humans can't trust humanity as a whole to press the blue button, then pressing the red button is justifiable. I don't believe it's unethical to not believe in humanity. Actually I don't even see it as a choice. You either believe or not based on what you have seen in the past happening and the way you interpret those events. It's like religion. Who wouldn't love to believe in god? It's just that some people's brain is just incapable of doing that because it makes no sense to them. In the same way, some people won't believe in a world that half of the population would press the blue button. Maybe it's a pessimistic way of thinking, but if someone is convinced that this is the reality, then I argue that pressing the red button is justifiable.
- Here the individual believes that he simply can't know, that human is completely unpredictable. Under this belief, he can't even approximate the probabilities involved so he can't even model the problem in a useful way. In this case, it's kind of impossible to make a choice. This group of people would be the most confused, and the most likely to not participate in the voting.
If you equally value yourself as much as others then this problem really forces you to take a decision based on your belief of reality about human nature, and based on your believe, pressing the red button can be totally justifiable as explained above.
So to say that pressing the red button is unethical, you would have to argue that valuing yourself equally as much as others is unethical, which in my opinion is not, but that's another debate (that is adjacent enough, so I am perfectly up for it).
Round 5
Well, it would have been nice if you addressed more than around a tenth of my points, but the first main issue with you're saying is that, "Ultimately I believe it's unfair to say that this is a decision should be made purely on ethics, exactly because it involves so much uncertainty, not only of the outcome, but of the problem as a whole. I believe it is more about belief than ethics."
Well, this is supposed to be an ethical debate. We're supposed to be trying to derive which choice is the ethical choice for people to make. I never once claimed blue will absolutely get a majority, only that it should. Whether you're unsure of the decisions of others is irrelevant to whether you should be, as the obligation I have advocated for exceeds you. I've already addressed that red can be a good choice in a given scenario if it is somehow certain that red is going to win no matter what, and I will go more in depth on this.
Well, this is supposed to be an ethical debate. We're supposed to be trying to derive which choice is the ethical choice for people to make. I never once claimed blue will absolutely get a majority, only that it should. Whether you're unsure of the decisions of others is irrelevant to whether you should be, as the obligation I have advocated for exceeds you. I've already addressed that red can be a good choice in a given scenario if it is somehow certain that red is going to win no matter what, and I will go more in depth on this.
Next, you say, "There are 3 kind of beliefs that change the ethics of the decision:
- Has faith in humanity. If someone is convinced that the majority of humans trust humanity as a whole to press the blue button, then it's only natural for him to press the blue button to realize his conviction. In this case pressing the red button is unjustifiable.
- Does not have faith in humanity. If someone is convinced that the majority of humans can't trust humanity as a whole to press the blue button, then pressing the red button is justifiable. I don't believe it's unethical to not believe in humanity. Actually I don't even see it as a choice. You either believe or not based on what you have seen in the past happening and the way you interpret those events. It's like religion. Who wouldn't love to believe in god? It's just that some people's brain is just incapable of doing that because it makes no sense to them. In the same way, some people won't believe in a world that half of the population would press the blue button. Maybe it's a pessimistic way of thinking, but if someone is convinced that this is the reality, then I argue that pressing the red button is justifiable.
- Here the individual believes that he simply can't know, that human is completely unpredictable. Under this belief, he can't even approximate the probabilities involved so he can't even model the problem in a useful way. In this case, it's kind of impossible to make a choice. This group of people would be the most confused, and the most likely to not participate in the voting."
First of all, everyone has to vote, there is no choice. Besides that, there are genuine contradictions with what you are saying. These are three potential ways of reasoning about the hypothetical, but they are by no means exhaustive. For the first point, deriving which choice is ethical is not just about having faith in the choices of others. For instance, one could acknowledge something like that murdering people is wrong even if people still do it, and even if in practice we need to act in ways that account for them, potentially including killing in self-defense. But, if people acted logically, they likely wouldn't murder in the first place. The second point is the most important one, because it is essentially your own position. You're saying that it is ethical to choose red out of doubt that enough others will choose blue, but we can be certain that those who choose red will contain many people who think the same way. In other words, it's quite possible that the doubt you have could justify itself, leading to mass death. I'm saying it would be for the best if we simply made the best decision, or if most of us did, and for trust to justify itself instead. Haven't you heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Also, I personally would not love to believe in a god. So, the reason red isn't justifiable is because even with all of the doubt you may have, you cannot verify whether or not red will get the majority before the situation is over. Since we can't, at this level of abstraction, blue is necessarily the logical and ethical choice for people to make in general. This concept that ethics applies to everyone and not just you is something you need to address. The third point is actually the only necessary type of starting point for this hypothetical, because blue being ethical doesn't rely on specific predictions, probabilities, or models, it's ethical in a more structural way. In other words, blue is the default. You seem to imply this yourself sometimes.
Lastly, you say, "If you equally value yourself as much as others then this problem really forces you to take a decision based on your belief of reality about human nature, and based on your believe, pressing the red button can be totally justifiable as explained above.
So to say that pressing the red button is unethical, you would have to argue that valuing yourself equally as much as others is unethical, which in my opinion is not, but that's another debate (that is adjacent enough, so I am perfectly up for it)."
The way you have worded this remains deceptive. I would say it is reasonable to value yourself as roughly equal to any other person, but it is thoroughly unreasonable to value yourself equally to the rest of people. The reason I am unsure about what you mean is because the former contradicts your entire position while the way you used it implies the latter, (which is an egregious claim and not really up for debate in the way you think). If you mean the former, then red is unethical as I have shown several times because it maximizes expected losses. If you mean the latter, then you must understand that people in general are valuable, as you implied, "The most important thing is to minimize expected losses", so, there must be something about them that makes this so, and since you haven't shown that you possess such a property to a much greater extent, it is quite clear that any defensible position contradicts the idea that you matter just as much as all other 8 billion people.
Since this is my last message, I won't be able to respond to your next reply. You haven't properly engaged with my arguments, and the arguments you made rely mostly on unnecessary or irrelevant assumptions, circular reasoning, or failing to realize your own internal contradictions. It would surprise me if this did not continue in your last message.
Whether you're unsure of the decisions of others is irrelevant to whether you should be, as the obligation I have advocated for exceeds you.
I think the main point on which we disagree is that you see it as a moral obligation to make the choice that most directly represents "the common good", while I am trying to approach and analyze the problem in more practical terms. I absolutely disagree that the uncertainty about the decision of others is irrelevant, because by definition it isn't. Each decision affect each other.
I'm saying it would be for the best if we simply made the best decision, or if most of us did, and for trust to justify itself instead.
I agree, in an ideal world, in theory, or for bees. But in practice it's impossible for humans. This trust simply isn't there, it's not how human works. You are saying that the problem is not comparable with the prisoner's dilemma, and maybe it's not, in many aspects, but the common element that I wanted to highlight is the Nash Equilibrium. I argue that given the problem, the vast majority of people will act in self defense.
The definition of morality is:
Morality refers to the personal or societal set of standards, principles, and values used to judge whether human behavior, intentions, and character are right or wrong, good or bad. It acts as a guiding framework that helps individuals live cooperatively in groups and communities.
If more than half of the population press the red button and believe themselves that it's justifiable, then can it still be considered immoral? And by whom? On what grounds would the opinion of the minority be more correct? Who decides that you are morally obligated to risk yourself in such a situation?
If you "can't possibly trust that half of humanity will go along with that plan" in the context of choosing blue, then that would mean you can trust that half of humanity will go along with the plan of choosing red. But, if people were necessarily so trustworthy, then it would be more efficient to direct such coordination toward blue.
It's not that you are trusting that half of humanity will go along with "the plan of choosing red". In this case there is no "grand plan". It just means that you are assuming that most people will make the simple choice to protect themselves, either because they think it's the safest or the most logical choice, or because they simply want to save themselves. After all, if you can't possibly trust that half of humanity will go along with that plan of pressing the blue button (and that is a "grand plan" because it only works collectively), then you essentially don't believe that people in general will feel a moral obligation towards people who might choose blue in this case.
The third point is actually the only necessary type of starting point for this hypothetical, because blue being ethical doesn't rely on specific predictions, probabilities, or models, it's ethical in a more structural way. In other words, blue is the default. You seem to imply this yourself sometimes.
I certainly didn't intent to imply that blue is the default, nor do I see how that would be true. On the contrary, I believe red is the default, because it's the most direct way to save 1 person with 100% certainty. Blue might appear as more "virtuous", but only in a shallow sense. In practice and depending on the individual it could result in something horrible. For example imagine a mother that chooses the blue button, ends up dying for it, and leaves behind her kids unprotected. She wanted to do good but at the end she saved nobody and left the most important people to her unprotected. It's only an example, and there are countless situations where the opposite is true. I am only trying to demonstrate that you can't simply say that "blue is the default", or that blue is ethical, in a vacuum, without considering practical
aspects.
I would say it is reasonable to value yourself as roughly equal to any other person, but it is thoroughly unreasonable to value yourself equally to the rest of people.
Sure, if you had to choose between you or half of the population, then obviously it would be immoral to choose the former. I am not sure if you are implying that the problem boils down to this. On that I disagree, since the rules of the problem are not even close to equivalent.
Then red is unethical as I have shown several times because it maximizes expected losses.
Again, this is only true if you make the assumption that every other person is 50% likely to choose blue/red. This is an irrational assumption in my opinion, so I don't believe that choosing red maximizes expected losses. I believe the reality of things is that blue can't win so the sacrifice is in vain. And yes, if everyone thinks this way, then it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. But sadly it's inevitably so.