I don’t like my answer here. I think this is the better reasoning.
Interesting problem. If there are 100 people then:
Everyone survives only if either a) 51+ vote blue or b) 100 vote red.
If a) 50 or more vote red then only reds survive and if b) 51 or more vote blue then everyone survives.
Assuming that nobody knows how another will vote, one ought consider each other person’s vote a coin toss. (1a) is much more likely than (1b) and (2a) is slightly more likely than (2b). As such, it is rational to vote red, even if one wants everyone to survive.
Edit: I re-read the original post and it says “more than 50%” and “less than 50%”. It doesn’t actually explain what happens if the vote is a tie, so the above might be slightly inaccurate, although that only really affects (2) — but I think the conclusion is the same regardless.
Obviously you missed the reference or are being very facetious. “Cut down the tall trees” was the coded message broadcast by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines to signal the beginning of the Rwandan genocide.
My point is the logic of this hypothetical situation is effectively morally equivalent to whether one would have been a génocidaire (note that not just Tutsis but also Hutus who refused to collaborate with the génocidaires were killed).
Those who are saying that they would press the Red button should say they would join the génocidaires, given the context of a Hutu-only area, if they are logically and morally consistent. After all, they can rationalize their choice on the basis of that they would kill no one if only everyone joined the génocidaires, and anyone who doesn’t join the génocidaires is dumb and thus deserves to be killed.
Of course this may seem like an offensive comparison, but that is the point — it is meant, by analogy, illustrate the basic immorality of choosing Red.
This is how I see the choices:
A nuclear weapon set to go off in 24 hours has been found in Times Square. A call has gone out asking for 100’s of nuclear engineers to volunteer to help defuse the bomb. As a nuclear engineer, I know my contribution will help, but only marginally. I also calculate the odds of my dying in the explosion along with the other volunteers and residents of New York to be close to 50%. So do I press the blue button and volunteer for the marginal chance of helping save many people, or the red button and turn down that offer in order to protect me from the 50% chance of dying in the effort to save others? It would be one thing if my pressing the blue button by itself conferred a 50% chance of rescuing the population of New York. But my contribution only adds incrementally to the 50% odds of their survival.
I think this forum will grossly underestimate the motivation the “hero” story has on the vast majority of people. I think most people are going to press Blue either because they’re dumb and the basic maths points that way (i.e without analysis) or that they are motivated by making “the right” decision rather than the best. Because most people have no clue how to assess that.
I’m going Red, because I would rather a lower population of smarter people survive in this particularly absurd theoretical. And if they don’t, I don’t survive anyway so I’m fine. Hopefully my friends and family choose Blue.
I disagree you can judge red button pushers genocidal, because genocide is intentional - it’s mass murder, intentional killing desired for the sake of dead people.
The closest thing to intentional behavior directed towards killing another person is, pushing the blue button if in fact you think less than 50% will join you. In that case, you can intend to kill yourself, and everyone else who pushed the blue button, knowing there will be many of you but not enough to get over 50%. That can be a conscious choice. If you push the red button, you can’t know who you are killing or really intend to kill anyone, because you can’t know what button they will push, so you are not killing anyone. If you are a killer, your best hope at certainly killing someone is to push the blue button.
So calling red button pushers genocidal seems like wishful moral indignation to me.
Besides, the scenario says people “survive.” Survive what? How are they killed? How am I supposed to fill in those blanks? Why would I assume there is a genocidal maniac involved? Maybe we’re all tied to a trolley track and don’t know it, and there is this switch or something attached to the floating blue or red button voting machine that we push with our noses…
And the quotes on the “right” decision are key, because most people will determine what is right because of what others say and do and what others tell them what is right. They are more afraid to trust their own analysis. People are sheep, especially in these emergency situations where we have to save the world (I hate that when that happens!). Panic - watch your neighbor - push the blue button - jump off the cliff with them - ask questions later.
Ok, but people are afraid to do their own analysis and take responsibility for the world, so they think “I always heard saving the whole world is good - so I’m going to push the blue button since the scenario has the quote “everyone lives” next to the blue button somewhere…”
Well, if you push red, the only people you have to face are others who pushed red, so…
Honestly, where’s the option to press a random button? Push a button and never learn which colour you pushed. (Like a colour-blind person who doesn’t ask anyone which button is which.)
Also: how would I die? There’s certainly a threshold of pain I’d be too much of a coward to cross. (I voted blue. Knowing myself, I might vote blue even knowing I might end up cursing myself for voting blue. I don’t mind death. That’s not much of a bad outcome for me. I do really hate pain, though.)
If you have no choice but to either select blue or select red, and you somehow interpret selecting red to be a ‘non-action’, then this is omission bias plain and simple combined with a premise that one action is really a ‘non-action’ and the other is not.
If you interpret things as there being a third option, not pressing any button in the first place, then pressing red is a definitive action, so then you cannot even appeal to ‘non-action’ in pressing the red button being somehow less-bad than ‘action’.
You cannot justify an action based on the idea that you do not know who you are killing. Otherwise, you could say that putting potassium cyanide in some but not all bottles of Tylenol at a pharmacy and letting people randomly select poisoned bottles is somehow less-bad than entering a grade school and shooting N number of people, even if the number of people who end up dying is no different.
And I don’t know what logic you are following when you arrive at the conclusion that pressing the blue button is killing someone, unless you argue that you are potentially killing yourself, precisely because no more other people will die because you pressed the blue button — and if enough people joined you in pressing the blue button no one will die — whereas if you manage to put the ratio of red to blue over 1/2 by pressing the red button an increased number of people will die unless no one pressed the blue button at all.
I would argue that morally murdering someone else is distinctively worse morally than self-sacrifice. At worst, pressing the blue button is self-sacrifice, whereas pressing the red button is potentially helping murder many people.
A deadly virus has been released that will kill everyone who has not been vaccinated.
Anyone who pushes the red button receives the vaccine. Anyone who pushes the blue button receives the vaccine only if the majority of the population pushes the blue button.
The “correct” choice is to push the red button. This isn’t a vote to kill anyone; it’s just requesting the vaccine. The only reason you might push the blue button is because you think that half the population will make the wrong choice, and you’re willing to risk your life to tip the scales to save them from themselves.
Another analogy would be that you’re in a school, and a shooter has entered the school. Either you can try to overpower the shooter — if enough people join in with you, no one will die — or you can flee the school, where then if not enough people are left behind to overpower the shooter they all will die.
Well, except I wouldn’t actually want a vaccine. The only reason I’d go for a vaccine is to help contain the virus. And if less than 50 % go for the vaccine, me getting the vaccine is a nuiscance. So I push blue; if enough people take the vaccine I’ll take it, too. If fewer than 50 % take the vaccine, I’ll just risk infection (my immune system is the best part about my health; bad skin, eyes, teeth, circulation, etc. but a stellar immune system.)
Other rephrasings might trigger another choice, who knows?
But what if you add the element that not everyone in the school knows about the shooter in the first place, and if not enough people who do know about the shooter attempt to overpower them they will die too?
Then you’re no longer dealing with the same problem. It matters that everyone is fully aware of the situation, the rules, and are given a choice.
These are two different ethical situations:
There are 100 people. 50 of them are asked to push either a red button or a blue button. Anyone who pushes the red button receives the vaccine. Anyone who pushes the blue button receives the vaccine only if 26+ push the blue button. Those who weren’t asked to push the button receive the vaccine only if 26+ push the blue button.
There are 100 people. All of them are asked to push either a red button or a blue button. Anyone who pushes the red button receives the vaccine. Anyone who pushes the blue button receives the vaccine only if 51+ push the blue button.
There’s a good reason to push the blue button in scenario 1 (to save those who aren’t asked to push a button), but everyone should push the red button in scenario 2.
