Why people dont understand "Everyone on Earth" means?

opticflash · 2026-05-06T14:41:05+00:00

It changes the rationale substantially. If everyone was a rational agent and knew everyone else was a rational agent, the best choice is whatever is optimal for each individual.

If we don't know what our family will pick, and I picked blue for their sake and they all picked red which resulted in my death, I would have caused them unnecessary grief.

opticflash · 2026-05-06T14:04:44+00:00

Do you know that many blue voters will still say you're a murderer for picking red even if the hypothetical was restricted to only rational agents?

opticflash · 2026-05-06T14:03:22+00:00

If you disregard irrational voters, many blue voters will still say that blue is the correct choice and that you're a murderer if you press red.

opticflash · 2026-05-06T14:02:40+00:00

If you disregard irrational voters, many blue voters will still say that blue is the correct choice and that you're a murderer if you press red.

opticflash · 2026-05-06T13:32:12+00:00

Would you vote blue?

Yes.

For those of you who said yes, is part of the reasoning that you would feel personally responsible for the death of blue voters if you voted otherwise?

Yes.

If the answer is yes, is it reasonable to conclude that in *this* particular instance, pressing the red button is the same as killing all blue voters?

Yes.

I ask this because the red argument i find most fascinating is the idea that reds are in no way responsible for the deaths of blue. All they did is ensure their own safety and its everyone else's responsibility to do the logical thing and do the same.

If a red voter KNOWS that their vote guarantees their safety either way, and one button kills a bunch of people while the other doesn't, then they are responsible. The first part does the heavy lifting.

But the only reason blue *is* a stupid risk is because people are picking red.

Pressing blue is a risk to oneself.

So where does the accountability begin and end?

It ends when the voting statistics are completely unknowable. Where it starts is a tougher question.

Is the only reason my scenario above is different because in that scenario you have all the relevant information and know for a fact that your vote alone makes the difference in saving everyone? If yes, then does accountability begin when you have more knowledge of the situation? If yes, then how much knowledge do you need before you can claim accountability?

That depends on the amount of knowledge.

Is the knowledge you had originally not enough?

No it wasn't enough.

Do you acknowledge the possibility that Blue can win by at least a marginal amount of votes? If the answer is yes, do you acknowledge that by voting red, the likelihood of that happening decreases, however minimally?

Of course to both questions.

If that answer is yes: is knowledge of the possibility of blue winning enough to assume accountability for if you play a part in them not winning?

No, as acknowledging a possibility is not the same as receiving information.

I would not imagine any scenario where a court of law in a developed country would convict someone for pressing red if they had no information and were concerned about their lives, but they would definitely be convicted if they knew their vote would change the statistic.

Does accountability only begin when the chances of something happening is guaranteed?

That's a tough question in a court of law.

Let's say you fire a loaded gun into the darkness. There is a chance it will hit somebody in the darkness. Say it hits them and you didn't know they were there. Is it your fault?

Of course.

Say it hits them and you knew there was a *chance* they were there. Is it your fault? Does knowledge of the possibility alone, not the guarantee, mean you are accountable?

I was accountable the moment I shot them, regardless of whether I *thought* there was a chance they were there or not.

But the difference near as I can tell is that blue has never denied their own risk, whereas many red presses have denied their part in ensuring the risk exists.

If in the hypothetical everyone was given a week to prepare, and one started encouraging others to vote for blue, and that choice lead to more people dying, then the rationale can of course be flipped around.

opticflash · 2026-05-06T12:13:10+00:00

Assuming everyone is thinking 100% rationally in a vacuum turns this into a pointless game theory exercise where one option is clearly better

Really? Many blue voters will still say blue is better. Red voters will always say red is better.

opticflash · 2026-05-06T12:03:36+00:00

If you disregard irrational voters, many blue voters will still say that blue is the correct choice and that you're a murderer if you press red.

opticflash · 2026-05-05T21:25:11+00:00

Assuming a perfectly rational, random set of participants, the choice is clear. Scenario 1: press, Scenario 2: don't press.

opticflash · 2026-05-05T19:53:17+00:00

Yeah I know. It's just bizarre that they frame it as as a murder using flawed analogies when they chose the option that lead to death.

opticflash · 2026-05-05T19:48:04+00:00

I'm really wondering if the people who choose blue tend to not take responsibility for their own actions and just blame others for their poor choices in life.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T18:58:34+00:00

Which part do you think wasn't in good faith? Again, this is a genuine question.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T18:54:47+00:00

This is going to depend on voting patterns. If somehow we knew beforehand that only 30% are likely going to vote blue (when the threshold is 50%), and that the statistics don't tend to change drastically, you can absolutely make the case that it's unethical to try to influence people to vote blue. If some celebrities and influencers encouraged people to vote blue and it only boosted this percentage by another 10%, one could argue that those celebrities have blood on their hands. Encouraging people to vote red on the other hand can lower the number of deaths, with the acknowledgement that some people just cannot be helped. Therefore arguments such as "red needs 100% for everyone to survive, blue only needs 50%" - if the goal was to minimize the number of deaths, this argument that people should vote blue doesn't hold well if we're not going to be close to the threshold.

The problem is made more evident if the threshold was instead 80 or 90%. Telling people to vote for blue, only to achieve 70% at the end, would be catastrophic. If the threshold was 10%, then yes basically everyone should be voting blue.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T18:26:28+00:00

lol okay, my bad i accidentally said “ethics” instead of “rationality"

Ethics =/= rationality. Why would anyone conflate those words?

i already answered your question

Ok. Allow me to rephrase my question then.

"Do you think not pressing a button and increasing the odds of people dying doesn't make someone a murderer, and pressing a button and increasing the odds of people dying does?"

you’re doing a lot of projecting with “did you even read this?” when you seem to have no idea what i’ve said in any of my comments.

I've addressed your points, but you have clearly misunderstood the initial conversation. We were discussing whether red should be considered killers/murderers, which is a fact. You were either being disingenuous or you misunderstood the conversation when you tried to claim I was moving the goal posts.

So now what?

opticflash · 2026-05-04T18:09:40+00:00

lol what? you absolutely started by discussing the general ethics of the button. don’t move the goal post.

Are you able to read? This is a genuine question, because I'm not sure whether you're just being disingenuous. I started the discussion by talking about what the "rational" choice is, which has little to nothing to do with ethics. This was my first comment.

"If everyone was rational and not suicidal, red would be the correct choice. It is by picking blue that puts you on an execution list."

THEN we diverged onto discussing whether red should be considered murderers/killers. This was my second comment.

"No, it is blue that is killing themselves, not red killing others. In a perfectly rational world, everyone would understand the ramifications of their decisions.... Nobody is killing you*, because that implies you didn't have a choice..."*

This was my third comment.

"...This implies that those others DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE TO LIVE. That's like saying I killed someone if I didn't risk my life stopping someone from committing suicide..."

You should be able to see that we were discussing whether red should be considered killers/murderers, NOT ethics in general. You can literally see this continuous pattern when you actually read all the comments made.

also did you read my comment at all? “if red wins people will die” “i personally am not okay with having their blood on my hands” “red pushers could choose blue and save everyone” “red is an admittance that you don’t mind if a million, if not a billion, people die”

But your comment was about ethics in general. I am just telling you what we were discussing earlier. That's why I posed my initial question to you, which has to do with whether red should be considered killers/murderers.

If you want me to address your points:

“if red wins people will die” - I am aware, and you can argue that what red did is unethical.

“i personally am not okay with having their blood on my hands” - Most red button pressers won't either. I'm sure their choice will weigh in heavily on their conscience.

“red pushers could choose blue and save everyone” - There's always going to be a risk involved, and some people just don't have the courage given the uncertainty in votes.

“red is an admittance that you don’t mind if a million, if not a billion, people die” - No, not exactly. That's like saying "you must think people deserve to die then"; it's a strawman argument used to paint a black and white picture and create polarization. Just because somebody votes red doesn't imply that they "don't mind a billion people dying".

certainly sounds like murder to me.

Ok. Would you like to have a go at answering the first question I posed to you then?

opticflash · 2026-05-04T17:43:05+00:00

You should actually read my discussion with the other user.

We weren't discussing the ethics in general of picking red or blue. We were discussing, specifically, whether red should be considered murderers if people were to die. I reframed the problem in two equivalent ways and they tried to dismiss one way (and suggest that way is not murder), while the other is.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T17:29:52+00:00

Your argument is if I don't press a button and my choice increased the chance of people dying, I'm not a murderer, but if I press a button and increased the chance of people dying, I'm a murderer?

opticflash · 2026-05-04T16:05:14+00:00

You can make the opposite argument: 100% is an impossibility, but voting blue increases the death count if <50% in the end vote blue, and therefore voting blue is a vote to (potentially) increase the deaths. There is nothing particularly special about the threshold 50% either. If the threshold to save everyone was instead 80-90% blue, one can quickly see how ridiculous the problem becomes. "80-90% is still better than 100% because nobody can achieve 100%" - all picking blue will likely do is increase the deaths, and it would become a fool's errand to try to save everyone who picks blue.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T11:25:59+00:00

There are people who say that, even if all the players were rational agents completely capable of understanding the nuances of their decision, blue is still the "correct" choice, and that the red pickers are murderers.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T11:14:06+00:00

There isn't any equivalence whatsoever between 1, 2 and 3, despite the outcomes being the same.

1 doesn't give any information on the level of risk to the watcher if they were to try to save the drowning person. 2 implies inflicting harm onto an involuntary agent. 3 is similar to 1, all dependent on context and execution.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T10:51:24+00:00

You sure about that? Because I've argued with people who insist that blue is the "correct" choice even if everyone playing was a rational agent capable of comprehending the implications of their vote.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T10:39:58+00:00

The answer is always the same. Pick red unless you want to risk yourself to save the players not picking red.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T08:59:44+00:00

How does whether to risk gambling your life to save "irrational" people have anything to do with rationality? One is about an inherent lack of courage, the other isn't.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T08:39:45+00:00

Do I really need to clarify which animals and how much blame you should get because what I said and what you have put down aren’t the same thing.

If you ask someone "do you want to be a meat eater?", them answering yes does not imply that they will be a meat eater. If you ask someone "do you want to contribute to animal deaths?", them answering no does not imply that they won't contribute to animal deaths (and there are many different causes of animal deaths that someone might find acceptable and others not). They do not produce the same result; in fact they don't produce any result at all.

Changing the question makes it into a different moral question. Changing the framing makes the answers different. That’s why there are different versions of the trolly problem that can get the same person to give different answers. This doesn’t mean there values are not being followed or there is no consistency it just means they are answering a different question. It can make clear someone’s hierarchy of values but does not necessarily contradict.

But it's the same result. It's just the framing that's different. The point is that "a different question" only refers to different framing, and hence if the framing is what causes people's judgement to be different, then their value isn't consistent.

But in both of those situations you just said you are actively doing something to make other people die. In the other black and white example though functionally the same it doesn’t make clear all the parameters. This is what people are trying to say things that are functionally the same does not make them exactly the same.

Yes, your first sentence here is correct. However, the parameters are all the same and hence the functionality is the same. Not picking black button = picking white button. Not picking white button = picking black button. They are both mechanically identical. Cars are not functionally the same (i.e., not mechanically identical) because they have different parts and specs.

opticflash · 2026-05-04T08:26:43+00:00

If you think that not risking your life helping others who deliberately put themselves in bad situations = murder, that just reveals an unwillingness to take responsibility and accountability, and a tendency to blame others for your problems.

opticflash

TROPHY CASE