libertarianindividualistconservatariancontrarian

But of course, fixing the problem would put you out of work, so you have to exacerbate the problem, and then say you were underfunded this whole time.

“If only we actually cared about this problem and devoted some money to it it would be fixed” -executive of an NGO making $400K

That there is a big Solve Problems switch and all they have to do is decide to press it, and everyone in power is evilly refusing to press it

They say exactly the same thing as the first screenshot. Like exactly. They merely think the simple and obvious solution is "Communism" and that people are pretending not to know what is going on due to false consciousness.

Yes I have

It's an ethical optical illusion. The correct choice is red. Everyone would press red and has pressed red. But you know thst "risk yourself to save others" is the kind of answer you are supposed to give as a good and moral person, so people will bend over backwards and invent new elements to make it into the right answer. The social desirability bias will twist their brains up so that picking blue is a heroic moral stand expressing their faith in humanity. They'll say that since losing even 1% of the world would be so disruptive, we have an obligation to press blue to prevent it.

They say everyone has an obligation to press blue in order to save everyone, because some people will press blue recklessly. But they don't believe that logic holds. Nobody actually believes in endangering half of society in order to save the most reckless people in it. If they did, all of them would be as reckless as the most reckless people in society, because they'd be following them around everywhere! They'd hear the national weather service announce a tornado warning that said to stay inside, and would immediately drive outside to try and rescue the people who were too reckless to stay inside.

there is absolutely nothing that is ethically complicated about not endangering yourself to save the most reckless people in the world. period. no ambiguity. if the most reckless people in the world pushed the Commit Suicide Button the proper response is "wow, they really should not have done that" the way you react to literally every other instance of suicidal recklessness.

in fact, you can remove the red button and literally nothing changes! the red button does nothing in the scenario. so the scenario actually is "a man walks up to you and, after determining you can understand the offer, presents a blue button that, if pushed, will kill you unless more than 50% of people total pushed the button. you can also just, like, leave." this scenario is identical in every way and yet the answer is even more screamingly obvious.

That’s besides the real point which is that there are plenty of people I know who I do think are likely to choose blue. I don’t want them to die and studies on this question indicates that blue has decent odds of winning so therefore I should choose blue.

The thing that makes it worse is that they really believe they're being self-sacrificing. You aren't running into a tornado to save people who recklessly stayed outside, you're running into a tornado to save people who ran into a tornado to save people. The only way to save everyone is for everyone to run into the tornado!

Compare OSHA. If everyone just does what's best for themselves, then a tiny fraction will die and the rest will live. If everyone follows the plan, then nobody will die.

All that being said, I would press the red button. I would not, in fact, run into a tornado to save someone who ran into a tornado to save someone.

However, I would like to point out that the reason pushing blue is intuitive is because all of our ancestors who would have pushed red in a real situation died out a long time ago. Saving yourself is not selected for by evolution. Charging into the enemy, massacring them in the rout, and taking their women for yourself is what was selected for.

Genghis Khan is the ancestor of 0.5% of the population of the world because he would have pressed blue. Pressing blue isn't a moral decision, it's what you do when you see the people in the front line charging and decide to follow them into either life or death. Whichever side has more blue-pressers will enslave the losers and the descendants of the blue-pressers will inherit the Earth.

The blue button is the charge button. Charge into the tornado to support those who charged in before you. People resist red because it resembles cowardice, and people hate cowardice because it was selected against in the ancestral environment.

The risk is existential. The burning building is theoretical. And a significant portion of the people who state they would pick blue? Do so specifically because they say they don't want to have blood on their hands.

You cannot argue the red button is the position of moral cowardice when the blue button is the one of intentional inaction.

Yes I have

It's an ethical optical illusion. The correct choice is red. Everyone would press red and has pressed red. But you know thst "risk yourself to save others" is the kind of answer you are supposed to give as a good and moral person, so people will bend over backwards and invent new elements to make it into the right answer. The social desirability bias will twist their brains up so that picking blue is a heroic moral stand expressing their faith in humanity. They'll say that since losing even 1% of the world would be so disruptive, we have an obligation to press blue to prevent it.

They say everyone has an obligation to press blue in order to save everyone, because some people will press blue recklessly. But they don't believe that logic holds. Nobody actually believes in endangering half of society in order to save the most reckless people in it. If they did, all of them would be as reckless as the most reckless people in society, because they'd be following them around everywhere! They'd hear the national weather service announce a tornado warning that said to stay inside, and would immediately drive outside to try and rescue the people who were too reckless to stay inside.

People will choose red if they value their own survival over the risk of other people's lives. People will choose blue if they value everyone's survival over the risk to themselves.

When framed the other way around, the question of 'Press this button and die, unless over 50% of people are willing to die with you, in which case you live' is not the option of 'pulling together for group survival'.

And that still does not put it on the other 80% to ALSO push the kill me button as well in case it saves people from their deliberate suicidal iteration.

That is very much the problem. This is not a path of people who are being saved because they need a savior. This is people who knew very blatantly that the choice would kill them. Removing the idea of another option that they're working in oppsition to.

Why is it moral to save people who chose to die?

I swear to god, people seem to think I'm not being literal. Why do you think I'm not being literal?

There is such a thing where people exhibit an excess of compassion and empathy, a need to put themselves at risk to support others to such a degree as to actually put the net gain at less than zero. People hate the widely used term 'Suicidal Empathy' but even framed as 'Pathological Altruism' it's the same thing. A maladaptive need to sacrifice yourself for a perceived greater good, and then demand others do the same to pull you out of the hole you dug yourself into.

And that's a suicidal iteration, no matter what it is. You don't have to go into it wanting to die, it's disregarding your own health and safety in order to 'save' others.

But there's a REASON why the sign reads:

Believe them when the show and tell you who they are

They've brainwashed themselves into thinking that society is a binary made up of Christian Colonizer Patriarchal Whiteness on one side and their progressive rainbow coalition on the other, and that even thinking anything bad about anyone at the top of the Progressive Stack is evil and makes you a Nazi. (And guess who's at the top of the Progressive Stack? Muslims.) Saying or even thinking anything bad about Muslims means you're a Nazi and pure evil, so no matter what awful things Muslims do, they have to pretend that they're not.