1.8k votes: 66% would press a button to win $100,000 but kill one random person

[Carl-Richard]

A YouTube channel asked a question: "If you're told to press a button for $100,000, but the catch is that pressing it means a random person on the planet gets a one-way ticket to the afterlife, would you cash in?"

As of the moment writing this topic, the answers were:

Quote

(1.8k votes)

33% "no 😇"
8% "yes one time 😈"
58% "pressing it multiple times 👹"

 

While you can doubt the sincerity of these answers (especially because the channel that posted it has an audience that would be prone to make extreme statements for comedic effect), I think the numbers aren't actually too far from the norm. Now, you can also doubt the accuracy of self-report, especially because you would probably expect less people to actually go through with it than merely reporting that they would go through with it (due to seriousness of the action).

Nevertheless, it think the numbers do reflect reality to some extent. Even if the numbers were highly in favor of "no", I think this topic is still worth talking about. How do we approach these people? How do we instill a sense of moral responsibility in them? Assuming they're capable of rational thought, are there any arguments that are likely to work?

 

I posed a question to the comment section which tries to provide such an argument:

Quote

Imagine that it isn't actually random and it killed your family members. Then realize that it will kill someone's family members even though it's random. Would you still push it?

 

Then I followed it up by a thought experiment exploring the question further were they to still answer yes:

Quote

If you still answer "yes", do this thought experiment:

You presumably think you care about your family members and that they will live a good life because you're able to experience their presence right now (so it's really about you).

But is that really the case? Ask yourself: do you care if your kids die? Presumably, of course you do. Do you care if your grandkids die? Presumably, yes. Do you care if your grand-grandkids die? What about your grand-grand-grandkids? Etc.

If you answer "yes" to any of these last questions, it most likely cannot be because they are in your presence, because you're most likely dead. It has to be because you care about their life, their well-being, not your own. And why should that apply to only your family members? Why does it matter whether or not it's your family that experiences well-being when you're gone? Can you even call it your family when you're not there with them? In my opinion, if you're being honest, there is no relevant difference.

So if you're honest, this would probably show that you don't only care about yourself, but you do actually care about other people, even random people, so pushing the button would be inconsistent with your values.

 

Essentially, I was trying to prove that what they interpret as self-concern actually cannot be distinguished from care for others. In a sense, their self-concern involves caring for other people, which is a natural human tendency. The question is just how far the circle of concern extends, and the thought experiment is also constructed to show that this circle of concern is arbitrary. In reality, if you care about other people (which you most likely do), there is no principled reason to care about one person over another (or at least that is the argument, which may or may not be entirely true, but at least it makes you think). The reason you would act to the contrary is merely because you act that way, not because of some principled stance (although you can feel free to prove me wrong; I actually intuit it's not fully correct, I'm just not sure how).

So far, I've not gotten any signs of serious engagement, but do you think the argument sounds convincing? Are there any flaws in it? Were you yourself affected by the argument somehow? Also, feel free to share any of your own arguments if you have any.

Edited January 7 by Carl-Richard

[Phil King]

Is it bad that I would probably do it if I got 1 million dollars?

[Epikur]

@Carl-Richard

I just asked AI bing about your opinion:

 

Quote

The argument that you presented in the comment section is based on the idea that people have a moral obligation to care about the well-being of others, regardless of their personal or familial ties. This is a form of universalism, which is a moral theory that holds that moral principles apply equally to all people, and that everyone has equal moral worth.

However, not everyone may agree with this moral theory. Some people may hold a different moral view, such as relativism, which is the idea that moral values depend on the culture, context, or individual preferences of the people involved. For example, some people may value their own family more than strangers, and may think that this is a legitimate moral choice. Others may have a different moral framework, such as utilitarianism, which is the idea that the right action is the one that maximizes the overall happiness or well-being of the greatest number of people3. For example, some people may think that pushing the button is justified if it results in more happiness for themselves and their loved ones, even if it causes harm to someone else.

Therefore, the argument that you presented may not be convincing to everyone, as it assumes a certain moral perspective that may not be shared by others. It may also have some flaws, such as:

It may be based on a false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy that presents only two options when there may be more alternatives available. For example, there may be other ways to obtain money without harming anyone, such as working, saving, or investing. There may also be other ways to help people without sacrificing anyone, such as donating, volunteering, or campaigning.

It may be based on a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy that assumes that a small step will lead to a larger and more undesirable consequence, without providing sufficient evidence or reasoning for this claim5. For example, it may not be true that caring about one’s family implies caring about all people, or that not caring about strangers implies not caring about one’s descendants. There may be other factors that influence one’s moral judgments, such as empathy, compassion, or justice.

It may be based on an appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy that tries to persuade by manipulating the feelings of the audience, rather than providing valid arguments or evidence. For example, it may use rhetorical questions, hypothetical scenarios, or vivid imagery to elicit sympathy, guilt, or fear in the reader, rather than addressing the actual moral issue at hand.

I hope this helps you understand some of the possible objections or criticisms that your argument may face, and how you can improve it by avoiding logical fallacies and providing more support for your claims. I also hope that you are open to hearing different perspectives and engaging in respectful and constructive dialogue with others who may disagree with you.

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Phil King said:

Is it bad that I would probably do it if I got 1 million dollars?

I'm arguing it's bad if you value human beings, and most likely, you do value human beings, just a limited selection, which is an arbitrary selection as you would probably have trouble drawing a definitive line (as demonstrated by the thought experiment). That is really what I mean by "a principled stance"; some principle by which you can establish a definitive standard for justifying your behavior.

Edited January 7 by Carl-Richard

[Bobby_2021]

Depends. Is the random killing happening infront of you face or is it happening in some other part of the world that you don't have to see it.

If you have to do it or see it up close, most people would choose not to have them killed. 

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Depends. Is the random killing happening infront of you face or is it happening in some other part of the world that you don't have to see it.

If you have to do it or see it up close, most people would choose not to have them killed. 

I guess you only read the title.

[Nilsi]

The reason is game theory and selfish genes.

Take any 2 random human beings and their genetic similarity will be 99,9%. 

If the organism was the unit of selection in evolution, of course it wouldn’t be a good strategy to kill something that’s 99,9% like you for a small gain in fitness for you and your closest relatives.

From the perspective of the gene, 100.000€ will increase it’s and it‘s closest relatives fitness substantially (siblings have 50% likelihood to share that gene, aunts/uncles 25% and so on) and thus it’s likelihood of being passed on, while the likelihood of any given gene being shared by any random human is way low.

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

The reason is game theory and selfish genes.

Take any 2 random human beings and their genetic similarity will be 99,9%. 

If the organism was the unit of selection in evolution, of course it wouldn’t be a good strategy to kill something that’s 99,9% like you for a small gain in fitness for you and your closest relatives.

From the perspective of the gene, 100.000€ will increase it’s and it‘s closest relatives fitness substantially (siblings have 50% likelihood to share that gene, aunts/uncles 25% and so on) and thus it’s likelihood of being passed on, while the likelihood of any given gene being shared by any random human is way low.

Which shows that given a large enough sample size, game theory is the dominant paradigm.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

The reason is game theory and selfish genes.

That and a lack of moral reasoning that would counter such a position  We can rise above our mere instincts 😇

[Nilsi]

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That and a lack of moral reasoning that would counter such a position  We can rise above our mere instincts 😇

Individually one can rise above this, but maybe game theory will always be the rule of the herd. Maybe that’s necessary for society to be stable; maybe not, I’m just saying.

We will for example never rise above the bell curve.

Edited January 8 by Nilsi

[Schizophonia]

There's probably no rational reason to refuse, especially if you're poor.

[Carl-Richard]

On 8.1.2024 at 8:38 PM, Schizophonia said:

There's probably no rational reason to refuse, especially if you're poor.

"Rational" depends on your values. I've been trying to show that it's probably not in line with most people's values and that it would therefore not be a rational choice (unless you don't care about acting in a way that is consistent with your values).

[Schizophonia]

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Rational" depends on your values. I've been trying to show that it's probably not in line with most people's values and that it would therefore not be a rational choice (unless you don't care about acting in a way that is consistent with your values).

I have no values.

[Schizophonia]

I don't want to protect my ego with absurd concepts.
I am only interested in what is fundamentally tangible, rational.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I have no values.

If you don't think so, that is fine, but values can be deduced from your behavior, in that you act like some things are more important than others. I bet you value logical consistency (you probably act like it's something important), and I bet you value other people (you act like you care about them, that you enjoy their company, that you don't want to hurt them, etc.). Now, all I'm saying is that if you truly cared about other people and if you were truly logically consistent, you would probably not push the button.

Edited January 12 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Rational" depends on your values. I've been trying to show that it's probably not in line with most people's values and that it would therefore not be a rational choice (unless you don't care about acting in a way that is consistent with your values).

What about the value of economic power (or just plain survival)?

You make it seem like there is no conflict between values, when there clearly is.

Edited January 12 by Nilsi

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you don't think so, that is fine, but values can be deduced from your behavior, in that you act like some things are more important than others. I bet you value logical consistency (you probably act like it's something important), and I bet you value other people (you act like you care about them, that you enjoy their company, that you don't want to hurt them, etc.). Now, all I'm saying is that if you truly cared about other people and if you were truly logically consistent, you would probably not push the button.

There are people who I wish to be well, who I want to help because I care about them in one way or another, it's not a duty.
The people who are supposed to die here are just random people.

[Schizophonia]

I care more about the death of a family member than a billion people I don't know.
Besides, every day there are billions of living beings of all forms who die, I don't care and so do you.
We don't want to eat a dog because it serves to keep you company, pigs don't have this prerogative so it's no longer a problem.
Etc.

[Carl-Richard]

@Schizophonia

Would you push the button if it was some of your great-great-grandkids that died unexpectedly some day in the future because of you?

Edited January 12 by Carl-Richard

[Emissary]

The answer is purely relative, whatever choice you make can be justified and rationalized in any way. For instance, you're statistically far more likely to kill your child by running them over with your car when pulling out of the driveway on the way to your day job than by pressing this button 10 or even more times if it was truly random. So from a survival and 'rational' point of view it actually makes more sense to slam the button, earn a million dollars and then be able to quit your job, hire a nanny, what have you, which will maximize your and your immediate family's wellbeing & safety while presenting minimal risk and requiring little effort. Choosing not to press the button still links back to the same principles despite seeming distinct. Maybe you're afraid that by some terrible luck it will hit your family, or that your neighbors will find out what you did and then judge you, or even if that whole ordeal was completely private you could be worried that you won't be able to live with this choice further down the line. Which are still survival, fear, and selfishness based reasons. Probably only one in a hundred million would choose not to press the button for actual spiritual reasons - Infinite Love, Oneness yada yada