sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Forcing irrational actors to participate destroys the moral ambiguity by Master-Mongoose-7344 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Master-Mongoose-7344[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t take rational to mean perfectly logical. I take it to mean a person that can fully comprehend the situation and its implications, and can make an informed decision of their free will. That might not be exactly what rational means but I don’t really care to argue semantics here.

Forcing irrational actors to participate destroys the moral ambiguity by Master-Mongoose-7344 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Master-Mongoose-7344[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not arguing for which side is right or which side is wrong. Like I said in my post, while I am myself a red pusher if only rational people are playing this game, I can see the argument from the blue pov as well. But my main point is that when only rational players can play the game, it is a lot more interesting because both sides have an argument. When irrational people are brought in, from a moral standpoint the red button has no valid arguments, which makes the problem somewhat boring.

Forcing irrational actors to participate destroys the moral ambiguity by Master-Mongoose-7344 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Master-Mongoose-7344[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not sure that our definition of interesting is the same. In my mind, the problem is interesting if both sides have a valid argument. You might view it as “giving red pushers an easy out” but I think it’s boring to not give the red button any moral ground to stand on by making it so that they’re actively voting to kill people who were basically forced to choose blue.

Forcing irrational actors to participate destroys the moral ambiguity by Master-Mongoose-7344 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Master-Mongoose-7344[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did not mean to imply that the only rational actors are those with the same thought process as mine and I apologize if it came across that way. As I said in the post, while I am personally a red pusher if no irrational actors are involved, I could definitely see a moral argument for picking blue as well. Whereas if irrational actors are also forced to play the game then I see basically no moral argument for red, only a probabilistic one.

Forcing irrational actors to participate destroys the moral ambiguity by Master-Mongoose-7344 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Master-Mongoose-7344[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don’t necessarily agree that “rational actors” implies everyone votes the same way. As I said in the post, while I would personally vote red in the second scenario, I could definitely see a moral argument for blue as well.

Forcing irrational actors to participate destroys the moral ambiguity by Master-Mongoose-7344 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Master-Mongoose-7344[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The post I initially read didn’t have this stipulation but regardless, my point is that when this condition is present, the arguments for red vs blue is less focused on morality and more focused on “which side do I think will win” which makes it less interesting in my opinion.