I recognize also that if most vote red and I vote blue, I die.
I then decide not to trust others.
Why is it immoral not to trust others? Do you trust everyone you know?
How is putting blind trust in strangers cooperation?
You tell me. I’ve been avoiding the word “moral”, preferring “ethical”. Ethics concerns considering others. Most vote blue, everyone lives. I vote red, I live. Which sentence is ethical? Which sentence involves others?
How is it not?
And note, it’s not blind trust: we have the empirical results that show that most people will cooperate.
And yet your repeated justification for pushing blue is “the best outcome is if everyone survives, which is most easily achieved by a majority voting blue”.
You’re not being consistent.
Voting blue doesn’t necessarily save everyone, because a minority might vote blue. In voting blue you might just unnecessarily add to the death toll. And everyone survives at no cost if everyone votes red. This isn’t a zero-sum game. Your reasoning, as I showed above, is a non sequitur.
One of the things that is apparent here is how little is understood of the background of ethical theory.
“The best outcome is if everyone survives” is not a calculation or argument; it is an assertion.
Now, do you disagree? Do you not think the best outcome is everyone surviving?
Or is it that you honestly think everyone will in fact vote red?
The argument is:
- The best outcome is if everyone survives
- … [other premises]
- Therefore, we ought vote blue
I have shown that (3) does not follow.
So either there’s no connection between (1) and (3), and (1) is irrelevant, or there’s something missing from your argument.
No, you haven’t. But even so, what you must do is more than show it is invalid; you must show it is inconsistent.
Moreover, you have not even attempted to address the broader accusation that your approach is categorically incorrect. Indeed, your insistence on syllogism and calculation shows exactly the problem to which Anscombe and Foot objected.
Happy days. You are carrying my argument for me.
Then actually address the comment to explain where I’ve gone wrong.
I only need to show that your argument is invalid to disprove your argument.
What approach? To show that your argument is invalid because your conclusion does not follow from the premises? What an absurd claim. That is absolutely, categorically, the correct thing to do, whether the topic is ethics or metaphysics or maths.
You don’t get to just say that because we’re discussing ethics then I’m not allowed to show that your argument doesn’t succeed at proving your conclusion.
It involves doing what is moral.
Cooperation requires interaction and communication with others, not blind trust.
So now the empirical results matter? Excellent. If the empirical results were otherwise, say showing 51% red, you’d vote red?
Also, I’d be cautious of over-interpreting an online poll with no real stakes. It’s easy to say that you’ll risk your life.
Let’s try this.
I am not presenting a deductive argument.
I am explaining the majority vote for blue by showing that folk recognize the situation. I’m inviting you to look at the situation and to see that voting blue will work.
Your insistence on syllogism is the very best evidence that you have not been able to see what is before you, and so you embody the very problem Anscombe, Foot, and I are describing.
Since it seems you cannot see this, I am not writing in order to convince you, but for the benefit of those reading along. Some of them will see exactly what is being shown.
I think I’m pretty much done here. No doubt the conversation will continue.
You have (tried to). You have been presenting some form of “the best outcome is if everyone survives … therefore we ought vote blue”. I have shown that this conclusion does not follow.
But if you’re not presenting a deductive argument then is it just “the best outcome is if everyone survives and we ought vote blue”? Then I agree with the first part and disagree with the second part. I have not seen any sufficient justification for the claim “we ought vote blue”.
Either you have an argument to justify “we ought vote blue” or it’s a bare assertion. So which is it?
If by “work” you mean “save everyone” then this is both vague and incomplete, because both of these are false:
a) If I vote blue then everyone will be saved
b) Everyone will be saved only if most vote blue
Your position only works if you can prove that the following is true:
c) We ought push the button that requires the least number of pushes to save everyone
Except I have presented several scenarios in which (c) is false, and so (c) is not true a priori. You’ve said before that my scenarios are not like the OP, but what relevant difference explains why (c) is true in the OP but false in my scenarios? My scenarios are fully consistent with the two material conditionals in the OP.
The choice is between everyone surviving and only red surviving. It really is that simple. It is a shame that you cannot recognise this.
This isn’t mutually exclusive. Everyone can be a red voter. You seem to have trouble understanding how material conditionals work. I have explained this several times. These premises always have the same truth value:
- If most vote red then only reds survive and if most vote blue then everyone survives
- Anyone who votes red survives and anyone who votes blue survives only if most vote blue
The second phrasing shows that the choice is between certain survival or surviving only if you chose the most popular colour.
Why anyone thinks the former is unethical and the latter is rational is beyond me.
Michael, what’s wrong with this statement?
Nothing, it’s true. I have to add more words to post.
And again you show blindness to the ethical dimension.
Some will vote blue.
Yes, but your conclusion “therefore, we ought vote blue” doesn’t follow, as I have repeatedly shown. I’ll do it again:
- Anyone who drinks water survives
- Anyone who drinks poison survives only if most drink poison (they are given an antidote)
- Some will drink poison
- Therefore, we all ought drink poison
(4) just isn’t true, and so doesn’t follow. Therefore, the below is invalid:
- Anyone who X survives
- Anyone who Y survives only if most Y
- Some will Y
- Therefore, we all ought Y