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

[Devin]

I see my future descendants as an extension of myself, that's very different than a stranger.

[Israfil]

On 06/01/2024 at 11:41 PM, Carl-Richard said:

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:

 

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:

 

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

 

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.

Imagine if you do it and the RNG kills your mom ☠️

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

@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?

probably 

edit : It's not because the perspective of doing something trigger cognitive dissonance that it's not, fundamentally, the most rational thing to do for me. 

 

 

Edited January 12 by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

People don't want to commit certain actions out of fear of going to hell, out of suspicion, or simply out of cultural indoctrination.
So yes from a certain "myopic" point of view it is rational for them not to do it because they are in agreement with what they feel, but if you take a step back then from a certain point of view quite broad /"holistic" which encompasses the why and how of the mental constructions concerned then no it is no longer rational.

Unless you can show me that believing in a stupid punishment or some sort of backlash as a general rule is rational.

Edited January 12 by Schizophonia

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Nilsi said:

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

Why do you value economic power? Is economic power intrinsically valueable (something you value for its own sake) or is it extrinsically valuable (a means to obtain something else that is intrinsically valueable)? I think most people treat economic power as a means to serve something intrinsically valueable (e.g. their love for other people). Even among intrinsically valueable things, there is a hierarchy of value, so you'll value some things more than others.

 

11 hours ago, Nilsi said:

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

Is the only way to economic power to kill people? It's true that there is often conflict between values in someones behavior. The most ethical vegan kills animals indirectly through their consumer choices. There is arguably no way to be a perfect moral actor as a living being, but there are some things that are more obviously morally problematic than others, and you can determine this by asking yourself some questions.

Edited January 12 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

I see my future descendants as an extension of myself, that's very different than a stranger.

Why? You most likely won't see your great-great-grandkids ever. They're not different from a stranger in that way. The only thing that ties them to you is your genes, but so does all life on the planet. Why not see all life (or even all of reality) as an extension of you?

Edited January 12 by Carl-Richard

[Devin]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why? You most likely won't see your great-great-grandkids ever. They're not different from a stranger in that way. The only thing that ties them to you is your genes, but so does all life on the planet. Why not see all life (or even all of reality) as an extension of you?

Because they're a result of me, my great great grand children are an epitaph of me.

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, Devin said:

Because they're a result of me, my great great grand children are an epitaph of me.

No, they're an epitaph of all life on Earth, of the whole universe, you psycho 😂 Nobody cares about you. You're an insignificant speck of lint on the penis of an alien (quoting Adrian Belew 😆; somehow "epitaph" primed King Crimson in my mind or something).

Sure, let's say they're an epitaph of you because your tiny speck of genes (6.25%) is sloshing around inside the nucleus of their somatic cells. Why the fuck does that matter? My sperm is an epitaph of me. My dead skin cells are an epitaph of me. My shit is an epitaph of me. "No, I won't flush my shit even if you pay me 100k". I'm obviously making a mockery, but still.

Edited January 12 by Carl-Richard

[Devin]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

No, they're an epitaph of all life on Earth, of the whole universe, you psycho 😂 Nobody cares about you. You're an insignificant speck of lint on the penis of an alien (quoting Adrian Belew 😆; somehow "epitaph" primed King Crimson in my mind or something).

Sure, let's say they're an epitaph of you because of your tiny speck of genes (6.25%) is swoshing around inside the nucleus of their somatic cells. Why the fuck does that matter? My sperm is an epitaph of me. My dead skin cells are an epitaph of me. My shit is an epitaph of me. "No, I won't flush my shit even if you pay me 100k".

People have potential to continue through reproduction forever and do grand things, human excrement does not. If a descendant of mine has a good life and reproduces and continues the cycle, or does something extraordinary, that is something caused by me and impossible without me, an extension of Le Psycho, my mark on this planet.

Edited January 12 by Devin

[Carl-Richard]

26 minutes ago, Devin said:

People have potential to continue through reproduction forever and do grand things, human excrement does not. If a descendant of mine has a good life and reproduces and continues the cycle, or does something extraordinary, that is something caused by me and impossible without me, an extension of Le Psycho, my mark on this planet.

Caused by you? Who caused you to exist? The universe. So nothing is caused by you in the grand scheme of things. Probably 99.9% of all people will forget about you 2-3 generations after your death. No trace of your name will ever be acknowledged ever. That is how insiginificant you are, yet you feel entitled to take another's life for 100k (I don't think you actually said that, but let's assume you did 😃). Weehooo. I guess they're right when they say ego is the source of all the world's problems ☺️

Edited January 12 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

probably 

edit : It's not because the perspective of doing something trigger cognitive dissonance that it's not, fundamentally, the most rational thing to do for me. 

I don't understand what you just said.

 

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

People don't want to commit certain actions out of fear of going to hell, out of suspicion, or simply out of cultural indoctrination.
So yes from a certain "myopic" point of view it is rational for them not to do it because they are in agreement with what they feel, but if you take a step back then from a certain point of view quite broad /"holistic" which encompasses the why and how of the mental constructions concerned then no it is no longer rational.

Unless you can show me that believing in a stupid punishment or some sort of backlash as a general rule is rational.

Would you push the button if it was your kid but you've never met them (you only met the mom once, you never saw her again and they won't know it was you)?

[Devin]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Caused by you? Who caused you to exist? The universe. So nothing is caused by you in the grand scheme of things. Probably 99.9% of all people will forget about you 2-3 generations after your death. No trace of your name will ever be acknowledged ever. That is how insiginificant you are, yet you feel entitled to take another's life for 100k (I don't think you actually said that, but let's assume you did 😃). Weehooo. I guess they're right when they say ego is the source of all the world's problems ☺️

Doesn't matter if they don't remember me, in the ego scoreboard of the universe they're a point for team Devin.

I think you fail to accept how little we value strangers, you know how humans focus more on negatives, well consider all the lowly people you've encountered, consider someone that is more inundated with them than you, they're not going to value strangers lives.

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why do you value economic power? Is economic power intrinsically valueable (something you value for its own sake) or is it extrinsically valuable (a means to obtain something else that is intrinsically valueable)? I think most people treat economic power as a means to serve something intrinsically valueable (e.g. their love for other people). Even among intrinsically valueable things, there is a hierarchy of value, so you'll value some things more than others.

Yes, unless you have a very specific psychological makeup, you will value economic power for its ability to obtain some kind of value. 

This then means that you don't treat money as an end in itself, but rather as a representation of whatever is valuable to you -- which is why you dont think of 100.000$ as 100.000 green pieces of paper, but as "a college fund for my daughter," "paying off my student debt," "a new Porsche 911," etc.

And this is precisely where it gets tricky and more complex than what you make it out to be.

Edited January 12 by Nilsi

[Schizophonia]

28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't understand what you just said.

I wanted to say that it's not because you have, for some reasons, difficulties to takes a decision that it's not rational.

In other words, it's not because you feel guilt for killing people that it's not the best thing to do according to the context.

28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

Would you push the button if it was your kid but you've never met them (you only met the mom once, you never saw her again and they won't know it was you)?

Yes. 

Blood doesn't have too much importance.

But if I know my son and I educate him, obviously for nothing in the world I would sacrifice him for money.

[Nilsi]

26 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Yes, unless you have a very specific psychological makeup, you will value economic power for its ability to obtain some kind of value. 

This then means that you don't treat money as an end in itself, but rather as a representation of whatever is valuable to you -- which is why you dont think of 100.000$ as 100.000 green pieces of paper, but as "a college fund for my daughter," "paying off my student debt," "a new Porsche 911," etc.

And this is precisely where it gets tricky and more complex than what you make it out to be.

The question is whether you view human life as something sacred, which has to be protected at all costs.

In which case, there are radical implications and questions one has to ask themselves, such as what your obligation is towards children dieing in Gaza, for example. 

Would you be willing to drop your college education to enact humanitarian aid in Gaza?

Or would you take money that you had saved up for your daughter and donate it to UNICEF?

Edited January 12 by Nilsi

[Dryas]

>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?

Because they're my family members? What other reason do you need. There actually is something different about family members vs non family members.

Just in a very basic level we care about some humans more than others - why should that be irrational?

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I wanted to say that it's not because you have, for some reasons, difficulties to takes a decision that it's not rational.

In other words, it's not because you feel guilt for killing people that it's not the best thing to do according to the context.

I actually didn't understand anything you just said, again.

 

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes. 

Blood doesn't have too much importance.

But if I know my son and I educate him, obviously for nothing in the world I would sacrifice him for money.

Would you help an old lady across the road, and would you nuke her for 100k?

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Dryas said:

>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?

Because they're my family members? What other reason do you need. There actually is something different about family members vs non family members.

Just in a very basic level we care about some humans more than others - why should that be irrational?

When you're dead, what is the difference between your family members and a stranger? You don't see them, you don't feel them, and same with them. You're just a memory in their mind, like the stranger they saw on the street yesterday.

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

The question is whether you view human life as something sacred, which has to be protected at all costs.

In which case, there are radical implications and questions one has to ask themselves, such as what your obligation is towards children dieing in Gaza, for example

In the question that was proposed, it's not just their life, but the likely suffering of their friends, family and community. It's in large part about the well-being of other people, not whether life should be protected at all costs. I don't know if this has been primed by the fact that I was recently in my uncle's funeral (a guy who I didn't get to know) and saw from a kind of outsider's perspective what the death of a person can do to a group of people (and also recently reconnecting with a part of my friend group who lost a friend to drug addiction 1 year ago), but I think I'm maybe able to connect with that aspect of the question a bit more than other people. And by the way, I'm not saying this doesn't apply to people in Gaza. It's just an observation of how people approach this specific question.

 

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Would you be willing to drop your college education to enact humanitarian aid in Gaza?

Or would you take money that you had saved up for your daughter and donate it to UNICEF?

I'm in luck because I'm aspiring to work with something related to mental health (hopefully primarily in the positive psychology sense, not the abnormal psychology sense), which I believe does save people from losing lives (prevents addiction, etc.), which improves the lives of people who are alive (increases meaning, etc.), and at some point will even stop wars from happening (yes). I'll be doing that in a way that supports myself financially and some day the people I will try to instill the same values as I have. I'll do this based on what I perceive to be my current calling or "dharma", judging by the experience of meaning and inspiration I feel towards it, which is a precious resource that has to be channeled the right way to be maximally useful. If I had experienced the same inspiration towards helping out in Gaza, I probably would've been there along with the other people who feel that way. Even if I had become something like a musician based on the same type of inspiration, that too would probably improve the lives of others in some way.

Still, even if I was the same uninspired no-life I was a few years ago, I still probably wouldn't have pushed the button. And that says something, as I would even steal money from my family members. If you truly connect with the reality of the situation (which I believe many people aren't able to do), actively choosing to end someone's life for pure and utter financial gain is very bad.

Edited January 13 by Carl-Richard

[Devin]

When you use plastics or chemicals, petrol, electricity even, do you consider your contribution to all the people that get cancer from the use of those things? The children worked to death to make your shoes?

When you think of environmentalism, do you think of your great grandchildren, or the children of the rude woman at the grocery store?

Edited January 13 by Devin