I still haven’t seen anyone justify pressing the Red button morally aside from “one shouldn’t go out of one’s way to save drowning people when one has to risk oneself to do so”, which isn’t much of a justification (and breaks down in this case because if a sufficient number of people do attempt to “save the drowning person” none of them will drown in the process).
If you convince a child to push blue and then 51% push red, were you a good guy or just a child killer?
Going back to my génocidaires example, let’s say that instead of just going forth and killing, 50% of the population need to accept machetes from the Interahamwe in order to overpower and kill the other 50% of the population who has refused to do so, otherwise they will fail to kill anyone. Is it moral then to accept a machete with killing people in mind then? (Now this is directly analogous to the OP, except that it avoids omission bias.)
If you convince a child to not become a child soldier, and then they get killed by the 51% percent of people who listened to RTLM and decided to go forth and kill with machetes, are you just a child killer?
Well, essentially you contribute marginally to the survival of those who pushed the blue button by ‘voting for them’. Your vote counts, but not by very much. If, for instance, you calculate that there is a 50% chance a majority of people will press the blue button, it is not as though there is a 50% chance that your vote will save those people. Your vote only adds a small increment to their chances of being saved. On the other hand, based on your calculations, there is a 50% chance you will die if you press the blue button. So you’re weighing in the balance a marginal contribution of your vote to the blue voters’ survival against a 50% chance you will die by doing so.
Yes, and I’m under no obligation to risk my life on the slim chance that my vote swings the majority to save those who chose to push the blue button.
Everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone guarantees their own survival by voting red, so if you choose to vote blue then that’s on you.
So, would you accept a machete and attempt to kill those who refused to accept a machete, knowing that your life would be secure in the process, while if you refused to accept a machete you might be killed if > 50% of people decided to become machete-wielding killers?
You misstate the case. It’s not that everyone who pushes the red button survives, and those who push the blue button survive only if more than half push the blue button. It’s that everyone survives only if more than half press the blue button.
Your version requires everyone to press red for no one to die. Pressing blue only requires half to press blue for no one to die.
Again, the best outcome is if folk presses blue.
Also, that you find yourself making a calculation indicates that you have already adopted a consequentialist ethic. Consequentialism does not provide a clear answer.
But yours is a good argument for compulsory vaccination.
1 Like
And I have to say that the 50% risk of loss of only one life, whether it is your own or someone elses, outweighs a marginal chance of saving many lives from an ethical perspective.
Yes, it is.
- If more than half push red then reds survive
- If more than half push blue then reds survive
- If more than half push blue then blues survive
- If more than half push red then blues dies
- Therefore, reds survive
- Therefore, blues survive only if more than half push blue
Not true. Everyone also survives if everyone pushes the red button.
I still haven’t seen anyone successfully justify why they should become a machete-wielding killer, which in my scenario is effectively equivalent to pressing Red.
The choice is between everyone surviving and only red surviving. It really is that simple. There is something deeply wrong in your reducing the issue to a calculation.
Press Blue.
You’re not killing anybody by pressing red, you’re simply not contributing your vote to marginally increase the odds that a lot of blue voters will live. Meanwhile you’re guaranteeing the saving of one life ( yours) which may have had a 50% chance of dying by pressing the blue button.
It’s not. There are 100 people. Me pushing the red button isn’t me saying “kill 50 people”; it’s me saying “give me a vaccine”, and you pushing the blue button isn’t you saying “don’t kill anyone”; it’s you saying “give me a vaccine only if most people push the blue button”.
Everyone should just push the red button, i.e. say “give me a vaccine”. Pushing the blue button, i.e. saying “give me a vaccine only if most people push the blue button” is foolish.
This is omission bias, and even then assumes that pressing red is equivalent to omission.
All we have to go on is a calculation. Marginal chance you will help to save people by pressing blue vs perhaps 50% chance you will die by doing so.
My error. The choice is between everyone surviving and only red surviving.
Press blue, everyone survives. Press red, some die.
All a consequentialist has to go on is a calculation. So much the worse for consequentialism.
Press blue and you marginally increase the chances everyone survives but 50% chance you die. Press red and one life is guaranteed to live, plus 50% chance everyone lives.
As Michael has pointed out, it’s not a guaranteed 50% chance.