Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
PaperclipPerfector
20hr ago
(text post)
850 thread views
Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This has resurfaced and been trending for a while
Currently at 42.1% red and 57.9% blue.
What would you choose? (See also r/slatestarcodex discussion)
I was motivated to post because I have a convincing argument for blue:
Stupid people will choose blue. You may not care about the disabled, elderly, generally moronic, etc. but this includes children and people who are "too generous": nice, but emotional, and devote their lives to charity
Thanos snapping a decent amount of the population (including random children, and biased towards selflessness) will probably overall negatively affect society
I probably won't die because most people choose blue, as evidenced by the poll. Even if I do, it may be preferable to living with the survivors (point #2)
My position, which seems to annoy both blues and reds, is that blue is the "altruistic" choice, but advocating or recruiting for blue is evil. If you want to press the probable-suicide button because there's a chance it might save some lives even though it certainly risks your own, OK, that's your business, and I can at least respect the courage that takes even if I think it's dumb and almost certainly doomed given the parameters of the hypothetical (it is asking literally everyone in the world, not just a Twitter bubble), but where it crosses the line is when you try to pressure others into pressing the suicide button alongside you through either manipulation or coercion: I have seen quite a few tweets about blues fantasizing about hunting down and purging all the reds once blue "obviously" win, which, to be frank, is not great optics.
Blues who threaten and coerce others into voting blue don't seem to seriously grapple with the possibility that blue won't win. They claim that reds have "blood on their hands", but convincing someone to vote blue and then losing is more fraught, morally, then opting to not partake. And the act of advocacy and coalition building is so obviously self-interested it diminishes the "altruism" in pressing blue.
Blues generally want to see themselves as saviors or martyrs, then fantasize about killing reds (or positing hypotheticals where the buttons are secretly switched and all the "anti-social reds" exterminate themselves, or where your choice of red or blue is actually made public); this is actually more cynical than the red perspective in many ways.
So there are broadly four categories of voters. You have people who advocate red and press red: their priors are that blue won't clear the threshold and pressing blue is suicidal. They argue for their family and friends to press red to save themselves. The presence of "randomizers" (toddlers, confused people, the colorblind or whatever) is unfortunate and it means that "everyone presses red" is not a possible outcome, but one can at least reduce the death toll by converting blues to reds.
Then you have the people who advocate blue and secretly press red. These are the "free riders" who benefit from the virtue signaling of claiming blue allegiance but don't actually bear any risk. I think this group is unambiguously the most evil, and, crucially, it's impossible to distinguish from a self-proclaimed blue-presser.
Then you have people who advocate blue and press blue. They want to build a large enough coalition to "win" and save everyone. This is noble in intent, but if the blue cause is actually doomed then they're just recruiting people into their suicide cult. Given that blue doesn't win in a landslide in an internet poll where the incentives are strongly oriented toward signaling cooperation and altruism, I'm not optimistic about blue's odds when the stakes are real. Plausibly these blues actually do believe that they can pressure and guilt enough reds to secure a victory. In any case, they're gambling with other people's lives and I think they're worse than "honest" reds.
The final group, which may not even exist, is the population that advocates red and then presses blue. This seems inherently self-defeating (as they're actively reducing the chance they survive) and suicidal, but if you're unsure whether blue will win and uncomfortable asking or coercing others to risk their lives, then this is at least a coherent position. This manifests as imploring your wife and children and anyone of sane mind to press red then solemnly entering the voting booth and pressing blue, expecting to die but unwilling to risk the possibility that your red vote could kill half of humanity. They would believe that pressing blue is a choice you have to make of your own volition: pressing blue because you're worried that the blue death squads will hunt you down in a post-button world isn't altruism, it's just a red who read the room.
Blues generally seem to believe that a blue victory is possible because humans are fundamentally good, or because we live in a high-trust society, but I'd argue that the highest trust society looks more like everyone independently choosing that last group -- advocating red then pressing blue because their conscience won't allow them any other option. A "fun" thing to consider is how many people might choose this path: how many of the filthy reds the blues fantasize about exterminating will waver in the moment and press blue? The discourse surfaces what people claim and the nature of the secret ballot means that just as the advocate-blue-press-reds are indistinguishable from blue's strongest soldiers, the reverse is also true.
I disagree that simply persuading people to choose blue is unethical. Ultimately it’s their decision, and it’s not obviously wrong.
But
A way to lose in real life is to get worked up over a silly hypothetical.
An example to demonstrate my point: there is a cult leader who has spiked the Kool-Aid with lethal poison. He genuinely, 100% earnestly believes that everyone who he convinces to partake of this drink will go to heaven; after he's tended to his flock he intends to follow them. Is it unethical to convince people to join him? He is genuinely acting in what he believes is their best interest. I think this figure is tragic, delusional, and dangerous, but, if he's a true believer, one could argue that he isn't unethical, though he is, at the bare minimum, projecting his utility function onto others.
Now, let's change the parameters: the cult leader is no longer certain that everyone who drinks the poisoned Kool-Aid will go to heaven. He's actually only about 50% sure. Maybe drinkers will go to heaven or maybe they'll just die. Nevertheless, he continues trying to convince everyone to take this gamble -- and he knows it's a gamble. Can he ethically advocate for Kool-Aid drinking? I think this is a decision that everyone should make for themselves after being informed of the risks, and that persuading people to drink the Kool-Aid (by asserting that their family and friends are going to drink it, for instance) is dubious and paternalistic. The strongest argument I think he is ethically permitted to make is something like, "I personally believe there is a 50% chance that drinking the Kool-Aid will get you into heaven; I believe the reward outweighs the risk and encourage anyone who agrees to follow me voluntarily."
This is not quite isomorphic to the button problem as posed but there are strong parallels. It is pretty close to the button problem where the results are already determined -- that is, no matter how many people you convince, the outcome won't change, and it's worth noting that this is the most common case: your advocacy is unlikely to change enough votes & minds to swing the results one way or the other. "The votes have already been tallied and one side has won by a significant margin: you and your family are the last ones left. How do you vote, and how do you instruct your family members to vote?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link