Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
39
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6752
Red > Blue
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 4,999
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Alright, so my main point is the phrasing of the question. My hypothesis is that that the phrasing of the question makes it sound like you can save lives and peals to emotion when in reality your just creating a problem that doesn’t need to be there.
Let’s rephrase into a identical situation:
500 hundred people are lined up blindfolded along train tracks, no one is allowed to communicate/talk. On the count of three you can jump onto the train tracks or stay where you are. If 250 people jump, the trains weight sensor will stop the train.
Everybody is safe, the only reason why anyone is in danger is if you deliberately jump onto the tracks blindly praying that 250 people jump with you, now let’s change that to 4.5 Billion people. Who in the world would trust their life with that many strangers. As humans we are sinful and selfish. Everyone has greed in their heart.
If you were randomly teleported to a room and say you can either save yourself or this random stranger from this random place on earth. Unless you’re suicidal, majority of people would choose to save themselves. It’s not about empathy it’s about survival.
This is a very dishonest argument to make. And, based on what you said, you didn't seem to actually read or at least comprehend my previous debate. But, you are correct that the choice of a certain option is more guilty of creating unnecessary risk, but it's not the blue one. You explicitly reframed the hypothetical using an analogy to try to make the blue choice seem more responsible for risk. But, such analogies are misleading.
For instance:
Imagine that there are two buttons. One button does nothing. One also does nothing unless >50% of people press it, in which case everyone who doesn't press it dies. Clearly, if anyone dies, it's more so the fault of those who chose to press a button with no real reward in the first place.
The reason this counters your analogy is that in your analogy you framed red as inaction and blue as suicide, but that's a biased way of viewing the simultaneous and complimentary nature of the causal influence of the buttons.
In other words, I'm not saying that my analogy is accurate or more accurate, only that framing either button as inaction is fallacious because neither button is inaction.
So, the reason blue is ethically superior (meaning a standard of what choices people should generally or always make derives that choice) because it is the option that, if people were to actually generally press, would lead to the best outcome.
For instance:
Imagine that there are two buttons. One button does nothing. One also does nothing unless >50% of people press it, in which case everyone who doesn't press it dies. Clearly, if anyone dies, it's more so the fault of those who chose to press a button with no real reward in the first place.
The reason this counters your analogy is that in your analogy you framed red as inaction and blue as suicide, but that's a biased way of viewing the simultaneous and complimentary nature of the causal influence of the buttons.
In other words, I'm not saying that my analogy is accurate or more accurate, only that framing either button as inaction is fallacious because neither button is inaction.
Then, you say, "As humans we are sinful and selfish. Everyone has greed in their heart." Sin isn't real, and humans aren't purely selfish. Humans are partially a cooperative species. And, the argument of what people should press is distinct from the argument of what they will.
You finally say, "If you were randomly teleported to a room and say you can either save yourself or this random stranger from this random place on earth. Unless you’re suicidal, majority of people would choose to save themselves. It’s not about empathy it’s about survival."
This new hypothetical is incomparable. I would say it's reasonable that most people wouldn't agree to sacrifice themselves for one stranger. The button hypothetical is fundamentally different because death can be entirely avoided.
You finally say, "If you were randomly teleported to a room and say you can either save yourself or this random stranger from this random place on earth. Unless you’re suicidal, majority of people would choose to save themselves. It’s not about empathy it’s about survival."
This new hypothetical is incomparable. I would say it's reasonable that most people wouldn't agree to sacrifice themselves for one stranger. The button hypothetical is fundamentally different because death can be entirely avoided.
Round 2
Before moving on, I’d like to reframe saying I do not disagree that blue is more ethical in idea. I’m saying that red is the better option to choose.
I don’t know what you mean by sin doesn’t exist. Sin does exist, when we steal, lie, lust, have greed, pride, that’s all sin. Not so necessarily what your thinking of it just being a Christian propaganda concept (Excuse me if I’m wrong about my assumptions). Humans can work together which has what made us such a successful species (along with opposable thumbs). But u can argue that there is a lot more division than cooperation. People are so divided on politics, nationalities, races, sexes, that we don’t all have one collective mind anymore that’s for the better of the world. We have all been transformed into prioritizing ourselves and close ones with survival instincts. Ergo, we can not trust the collective if there is even the slightest bit of fracture. Because when one hears of betrayal, it puts doubt in our minds and we cannot trust anything. It’d be very nice if we did, but realistically we can’t. The blue is appealing to emotions which strikes people hearts before logic comes in, except for arguments like these of course.
Trust me, I understand what you think you're trying to say, but you're making the same error.
The contradiction with what you're saying is the following:
The contradiction with what you're saying is the following:
"I do not disagree that blue is more ethical in idea. I’m saying that red is the better option to choose."
You're trying to make a distinction between which option is ethical or ethical in theory and which is the better option to choose. But, specifically because we are discussing which button is better, which implies a standard that applies not just to you or me but to all people whom may encounter the choice, there is no real distinction between these. The choice people should be choosing is the ethical one.
Obviously, what you're trying to say is that in practice red will always win because people are too selfish, making the choice of blue for any given person suicide. But, this doesn't really concern which choice is better, it only attempts to predict an outcome.
Ask yourself this, should blue win?
If the answer is yes, then that's all we need. I'm not here to try to prove blue will absolutely win. Only that it should.
Obviously, what you're trying to say is that in practice red will always win because people are too selfish, making the choice of blue for any given person suicide. But, this doesn't really concern which choice is better, it only attempts to predict an outcome.
Ask yourself this, should blue win?
If the answer is yes, then that's all we need. I'm not here to try to prove blue will absolutely win. Only that it should.
Round 3
Blue should win, but it most likely won’t. The goal, how I see it, is for survival. If I were in the situation I’m not trying to make sure everyone is happy with each other and sing kumbaiya; I’m trying to survive and return to my family and life. If we agree that humans are sinful, then we all have some level of greed in our hearts. So it doesn’t matter if we can risk our lives blindly to show how together the world is, what matters is pressing red to guarantee that survival. The only reason why people will die, is because they are too incompetent to know what they’re doing, or they are thinking of a problem that doesn’t need to exist. Therefore red is more logical and the better option to press than blue.
Then, you essentially admit that blue is the ethically superior button, you only note that you're not willing to choose it regardless, and you project this unwillingness onto the majority.
As I see it, the debate is essentially over.
But, there is more I would like to point out.
You say, "I’m trying to survive and return to my family and life."
However, if billions die (which you would intend to contribute to the possibility of rather than to the possibility of it not occurring), your original "life" and potentially even your family wouldn't be there to return to.
Even if everyone you're particularly interested in happens to pick red, if billions or even if hundreds of millions die, then that will still affect you. Negatively, as the collapse of global economy and the loss of social services is likely to cause chaos, violence, and many more deaths beyond those who chose blue.
So, even if we all "have some level of greed in our hearts", greed doesn't obviously point to choosing immediate survival over all forms of self-interest. Even someone particularly selfish can pick blue because keeping the world stable is within their interest.
Even if everyone you're particularly interested in happens to pick red, if billions or even if hundreds of millions die, then that will still affect you. Negatively, as the collapse of global economy and the loss of social services is likely to cause chaos, violence, and many more deaths beyond those who chose blue.
So, even if we all "have some level of greed in our hearts", greed doesn't obviously point to choosing immediate survival over all forms of self-interest. Even someone particularly selfish can pick blue because keeping the world stable is within their interest.
You then finally say, "The only reason why people will die, is because they are too incompetent to know what they’re doing, or they are thinking of a problem that doesn’t need to exist. Therefore red is more logical and the better option to press than blue."
You're absolutely correct in the first sentence which makes the following conclusion in the next paradoxical. The only reason people would die is because people created a problem that doesn't have to exist.
What's the problem that doesn't have to exist? Death.
Which button is responsible for that? Both, but the most robust form of the choice of the red button is nothing other than the assumption of doubt in others inducing its own unnecessary justification.
For instance:
If 60% of people doubt everyone else and pick red, then 40% of people may die. Each person was correct to doubt because they would have also died if they didn't, considering that 60% chose red.
Now, if 60% of people trust that people wouldn't pick red, then everyone lives. So, each person who chose blue was correct in trusting others and correct to contribute to everyone's survival.
However, such intuitions need not be permanent and inevitable. We can reason about them. We can evaluate their affects.
Do you see how justification is only seems to be present afterward? It seems like whether the choice was right was based on what others chose. But, this is exactly the fundamental error.
Which of those two scenarios should happen? In other words, what kind of mindset and reasoning should people tend to have about the hypothetical?
Of course, the trusting one.
Next, my assumption is that you would say something like, "well, that's great in theory, but it'll never happen because people don't actually trust each other"
All you've done is the same thing but one step back, so to speak.
Should people understand that trust is better, then go on to still doubt that same trust (thus making that doubt viable), or should they trust in the trust that they understand should exist?
Thus, the ethical (and logical) choice for people to make in general is not the one based on presupposing a specific result but the one that would tend to produce the best result when generally chosen.
By assuming red wins (and when others do so as well) (which is really the only possible justification for red), you are not simply passively reacting to distrust or "greed". You are making the wrong choice. So is everyone else who picks red. Whether red ends up winning doesn't contradict this.
And, as long as you can accept this, there is little for us to disagree about.
And, as long as you can accept this, there is little for us to disagree about.
Round 4
Forfeited
Round 5
Forfeited
