Which Pill Do You Choose? (Stolen from Twitter/X) (1 Viewer)

[fruity pebbles]

I’m pretty sure at least one of my kids would choose green. I’d cease existing if I had a hand in sentencing one of them to death so green it is.

 

[MAC_32]

I didn't read any posts but ctrl f didn't yield any Dark Knight results, so imma vote Joker.

 

[dickey moe]

That there are compelling arguments presented in here for each option show that this is a more-than-worthy game theory question.

 

[Terminalxylem]

For those who chose orange, is there any poll result that would change their minds?

Seems like many are saying they can’t believe people will choose green, despite direct evidence to the contrary.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For those who chose orange, is there any poll result that would change their minds?

No. I'm picking orange no matter how many people tell me they're picking green. My choice is totally invariant to what others are doing. I basically see taking the orange pill as opting not to play a game with death on the line.

My guess is that you'd have to change some parameters of the problem to get people to change their vote. For example, suppose we change it to:

If > 50% of people choose the green pill, everyone lives and everyone gets a one-time payout of $X.
If not, orange pills live and green pills die.

In the original problem, X = 0, which is why people like me are like "Wait, why would anybody pick green? There's literally no reason to do that." Well, if a green majority turns everyone rich, now that choice actually leads to a materially better world than one where everyone picks orange. If you make X large enough, that surely would push a lot of us orange pill takers into the green camp.

This surely works the other way too. Suppose we do the following:

If > Y% of people choose the green pill, everyone lives.
If not, orange pills live and green pills die.

In the original problem, Y = 50%. And looking at the poll results both here and on Twitter, that works out okay -- everybody lives. But what if Y were 66%? Would you still roll the dice on green? What if Y were 90%? 99%? What if it required unanimity? If the green equilibrium required 99.9% of all people to take the green pill for everyone to be saved, surely the number of green pill takers would drop to nearly zero, right?

 

[-OZ-]

Well, if a green majority turns everyone rich, now that choice actually leads to a materially better world than one where everyone picks orange. If you make X large enough, that surely would push a lot of us orange pill takers into the green camp.

So now we get more inflation too!

 

[AAABatteries]

I’m pretty sure at least one of my kids would choose green. I’d cease existing if I had a hand in sentencing one of them to death so green it is.

Interesting angle - I already chose green in the pole but don’t really like hypotheticals like this. Like shuke I would consider voting different IRL but your post definitely gives me pause. For those saying orange, would you be ok with your choice if your wife or kids die (in part) from your choice? I know I wouldn’t.

 

[Skipdog77]

I choose brown dot, definitely. Maybe blue.

Oh, you said "pills". Whoopsie. NVM.

 

[belljr]

Why would anyone ever choose a pill that has everyone else (or at least a large populace of people) die? That makes zero sense, unless of course you are Thanos.

Simply put, I don't want to live in a world where over 50% of the population dies in an instant. At the minimum, the world economy would crash. At the worst, I lose some people I really love, like my wife and kids because i have no guarantee that they picked orange. This one is pretty easy.

Neither scenario would cause over 50% of people to die 49% maybe

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I basically see taking the orange pill as opting not to play a game with death on the line.

But you are playing by contributing to the possibility that under 50% choose green and all die. I’m not saying your choice is wrong, but trying to absolve yourself by pretending your choice isn’t playing is a cop out.

 

[dgreen]

There are so many reasons for people to pick orange. Easy ones that come to mind:
1. They are dumb and can’t think it through so they pick the safe choice
2. They are selfish
3. They are scared….this is their life you are talking about.

I am sure there are many others.

There is no way I would bet my life that enough people would pick green.

4. knowing that everyone who makes the same choice will live vs the really small chance that your vote pushes green over 50%.

This is the best argument yet. Basically, the debate goes like this:

If everyone picks orange, everyone lives.

Ok, but if everyone picks green , everyone lives. So, that’s a wash.

Someone is going to pick green, probably even some people you love the most, so do you want to help get green to 50%? But, what are the odds that without your choice that greens are 50% - 1, and your choice could swing the fate of so many people? It’s pretty close to 0% chance.

You really aren’t deciding whether others die or not. You are only choosing whether you live.

So, the next question is whether the resulting world, in the event green doesn’t reach 50%, is one in which you want to live.

 

[brun]

Orange
Everyone picking orange lives.
Also;
When it comes to pills, candy etc. Orange usually means a flavor that I'll like better.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I basically see taking the orange pill as opting not to play a game with death on the line.

But you are playing by contributing to the possibility that under 50% choose green and all die. I’m not saying your choice is wrong, but trying to absolve yourself by pretending your choice isn’t playing is a cop out.

No, I get that. But that's on the green pill takers, not on me.

This is less a prisoner's dilemma and more a very weird trolley problem. 100 people are standing around some trolley tracks, enjoying a pleasant Saturday afternoon. A trolley appears on the horizon. If 50 or more people throw themselves on the trolley tracks, the trolley will be stopped by their collective strength and nobody will be harmed. If fewer than 50 people throw themselves on the tracks, the trolley will barrel right through them, killing them all. There is no requirement that you throw yourself on the tracks -- you are free to walk away and just go home. The trolley will be here in 60 seconds.

Why would I not just go home? If I see other people jumping on the tracks and imploring me to join them, I'm going to look at them like they're crazy and walk away.

To me, the orange pill people are the folks who shovel out their driveway in the winter even when there's no immediate reason to, just their neighbors know that everybody is fine and nobody is in need of any assistance. It's what responsible adults just know to do. The green pill people are creating a dramatic situation entirely of their own making and then getting mad that people aren't joining in*. I think this is less about moral reasoning -- and its really not about game theory -- than it is about personal mood.

*Obviously I know that green pill people don't view themselves that way, and they're in the majority after all. I'm just trying to explain to the green pill crowd why us orange-pillers see ourselves as the pro-social group and the other group as trouble-makers. Green-pillers, by way of contrast, I think view themselves as rescuing innocent people in need while orange-pillers just stand there chortling from shore. We see the first green-pill taker as the guy who dives into a lake without knowing how to swim, who then proceeds to drown both himself and the guy who jumped in to help.

 

[pecorino]

Why would anyone ever choose a pill that has everyone else (or at least a large populace of people) die? That makes zero sense, unless of course you are Thanos.

Just to be clear, everybody who takes the orange pill lives no matter what. If everybody takes the orange pill, nobody dies.

I just want to make sure nobody gets the wrong idea, like that you're automatically zapping somebody if you take the orange pill. There is an everybody-takes-orange equilibrium where everyone lives.

Ah, so I suppose in that sense it is different from the Prisoner's Dilemma, since there are two potential best-case outcomes. In the classic PD, the individual's choice is between a guaranteed less-bad outcome or taking a chance on a best-case outcome (with the downside risk of a worst-case outcome)

Yeah, it's not a prisoners' dilemma. There is no dominant strategy here (in the jargon, "green pill" is only weakly dominated by "orange pill" whereas in a PD "cooperate" is strictly dominated by "defect") and there are multiple equilibria in this game. But I was mainly interested in how people read their moral intuitions into the game. Specifically the "orange = selfish = bad" chain that the majority sees.

Unless we are using different definitions of “dominant”, there is a dominant strategy as a single, one-time player. When I use the word dominant in a game theoretic sense, it connotes a strategy for which I cannot improve my outcome by choosing a different strategy. In this example, that would be taking the orange pill. If a minority of players have chosen the green pill, then it is in my best interest to take the orange pill. If a majority of people took the green then it is immaterial whether I take the orange or green pill. I don’t which scenario is true, therefore the orange pill dominates the green pill choice.

Prisoner’s Dilemma and this orange/green dilemma are similar in that in a 1-time play, the dominant strategy is obvious (defection). In PD and maybe in this one, repeatedly playing makes a big difference as trust can be established. I read “taking orange” as either mistrustful, smart, cynical, selfish—take your pick. But I’m taking orange.

 

[ChiefD]

There are so many reasons for people to pick orange. Easy ones that come to mind:
1. They are dumb and can’t think it through so they pick the safe choice
2. They are selfish
3. They are scared….this is their life you are talking about.

I am sure there are many others.

There is no way I would bet my life that enough people would pick green.

4. knowing that everyone who makes the same choice will live vs the really small chance that your vote pushes green over 50%.

This is the best argument yet. Basically, the debate goes like this:

If everyone picks orange, everyone lives.

Ok, but if everyone picks green , everyone lives. So, that’s a wash.

Someone is going to pick green, probably even some people you love the most, so do you want to help get green to 50%? But, what are the odds that without your choice that greens are 50% - 1, and your choice could swing the fate of so many people? It’s pretty close to 0% chance.

You really aren’t deciding whether others die or not. You are only choosing whether you live.

So, the next question is whether the resulting world, in the event green doesn’t reach 50%, is one in which you want to live.

This is why I chose beer.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I basically see taking the orange pill as opting not to play a game with death on the line.

But you are playing by contributing to the possibility that under 50% choose green and all die. I’m not saying your choice is wrong, but trying to absolve yourself by pretending your choice isn’t playing is a cop out.

No, I get that. But that's on the green pill takers, not on me.

This is less a prisoner's dilemma and more a very weird trolley problem. 100 people are standing around some trolley tracks, enjoying a pleasant Saturday afternoon. A trolley appears on the horizon. If 50 or more people throw themselves on the trolley tracks, the trolley will be stopped by their collective strength and nobody will be harmed. If fewer than 50 people throw themselves on the tracks, the trolley will barrel right through them, killing them all. There is no requirement that you throw yourself on the tracks -- you are free to walk away and just go home. The trolley will be here in 60 seconds.

Why would I not just go home? If I see other people jumping on the tracks and imploring me to join them, I'm going to look at them like they're crazy and walk away.

To me, the orange pill people are the folks who shovel out their driveway in the winter even when there's no immediate reason to, just their neighbors know that everybody is fine and nobody is in need of any assistance. It's what responsible adults just know to do. The green pill people are creating a dramatic situation entirely of their own making and then getting mad that people aren't joining in*. I think this is less about moral reasoning -- and its really not about game theory -- than it is about personal mood.

*Obviously I know that green pill people don't view themselves that way, and they're in the majority after all. I'm just trying to explain to the green pill crowd why us orange-pillers see ourselves as the pro-social group and the other group as trouble-makers. Green-pillers, by way of contrast, I think view themselves as rescuing innocent people in need while orange-pillers just stand there chortling from shore. We see the first green-pill taker as the guy who dives into a lake without knowing how to swim, who then proceeds to drown both himself and the guy who jumped in to help.

Or, to quote the AI that I grew up with:

Strange game, the only winning move is not to play.

 

[The Z Machine]

Why would anyone ever choose a pill that has everyone else (or at least a large populace of people) die? That makes zero sense, unless of course you are Thanos.

Simply put, I don't want to live in a world where over 50% of the population dies in an instant. At the minimum, the world economy would crash. At the worst, I lose some people I really love, like my wife and kids because i have no guarantee that they picked orange. This one is pretty easy.

Neither scenario would cause over 50% of people to die 49% maybe

Sure, you're right. Whether it's 49% or 15% my point still stands.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

No, I get that. But that's on the green pill takers, not on me.

Once again, not criticizing your decision, but you shouldn't act like making that decision absolves you of what happens next. I think your logic is sound and the way this problem is designed, everyone should choose the orange pill, but there are ramifications whether you acknowledge them or not.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I picked orange without thinking too much that as long as everyone picks orange nobody dies anyways.

I can see the argument the other way though.

the syracuse grad stops reading at the word orange...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Unless we are using different definitions of “dominant”, there is a dominant strategy as a single, one-time player. When I use the word dominant in a game theoretic sense, it connotes a strategy for which I cannot improve my outcome by choosing a different strategy. In this example, that would be taking the orange pill. If a minority of players have chosen the green pill, then it is in my best interest to take the orange pill. If a majority of people took the green then it is immaterial whether I take the orange or green pill. I don’t which scenario is true, therefore the orange pill dominates the green pill choice.

Prisoner’s Dilemma and this orange/green dilemma are similar in that in a 1-time play, the dominant strategy is obvious (defection). In PD and maybe in this one, repeatedly playing makes a big difference as trust can be established. I read “taking orange” as either mistrustful, smart, cynical, selfish—take your pick. But I’m taking orange.

I don't want to get too hung up on this point because it's kind of technical, but there's a meaningful difference between a strategy X being weakly dominant (X is always at least as good as any other strategy and sometimes better) vs. a strategy X being strictly dominant (X is always strictly better than any other strategy, and it is never a tie).

In a classic prisoner's dilemma, "defect" is strictly dominant. You always do better by defecting no matter what the other players do. The result is that there's exactly one Nash equilibrium: the sad one where everybody defects. There is no equilibrium in either pure or mixed strategies that involves anybody cooperating. (One shot game, obviously).

In this game, the orange pill is only weakly dominant. It does better than the green pill if a bunch of people choose orange, but it does no better than the green pill if most people pick green. Note that "everybody takes the green pill" is absolutely a Nash equilibrium in this game -- if everybody is taking the green pill, nobody has any incentive to change his or her action. Now of course, there's also no affirmative reason for anybody to stick with green in the scenario either. They should be indifferent between green and orange, so that's a thin reed upon which to hang an equilibrium. But is an equilibrium. There are a ton of equilibria in this game. They range from:

• Everybody picks green.
• Everybody except for one guy picks green -- he picks orange.
• Everybody except for two guys picks green -- those two guys pick orange.
• Everybody except for three guys picks green -- those three guys pick orange.
• . . . . .
• 50% + 1 person picks green -- everybody else picks orange.
• Everybody picks orange.

There are also mixed strategies but nobody cares about those. It's worth noting that our actual poll results represent an equilibrium. About a third of us are picking orange and two thirds are picking blue. Everybody survives, so nobody has any reason to regret their choice.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

This has been making the rounds in my little Twitter circle. It seems be extremely divisive, so I figured it would make a fun topic for the FFA. Here it goes:

Everyone responding to this poll chooses between a green pill and an orange pill.

If > 50% of people choose the green pill, everyone lives.
If not, orange pills live and green pills die.

Which do you choose?

this has been sort of covered, but I do think it's largely a framing effect issue that drives people toward green (aside from a few other understandable arguments, even if not compelling). People do not want to choose an option that they perceive as killing people. It's sort of like the classic trolley problem in that respect. If this were worded in a way that didn't literally say that people died, it would probably be different, even if the outcomes would be exactly the same.

 

[foxco]

Wife and daughters all chose green when I proposed the question, which left me to take one for the team and go orange. Hopefully this hypothetical Thanos type situation works out.

 

[The Z Machine]

Why would I want to be complicit in the death of anyone, let alone a child or someone with intellectual disabilities that didn't or couldn't understand the question or the ramifications?

 

[the moops]

but Ivan seems nice

Sometimes

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I basically see taking the orange pill as opting not to play a game with death on the line.

But you are playing by contributing to the possibility that under 50% choose green and all die. I’m not saying your choice is wrong, but trying to absolve yourself by pretending your choice isn’t playing is a cop out.

No, I get that. But that's on the green pill takers, not on me.

This is less a prisoner's dilemma and more a very weird trolley problem. 100 people are standing around some trolley tracks, enjoying a pleasant Saturday afternoon. A trolley appears on the horizon. If 50 or more people throw themselves on the trolley tracks, the trolley will be stopped by their collective strength and nobody will be harmed. If fewer than 50 people throw themselves on the tracks, the trolley will barrel right through them, killing them all. There is no requirement that you throw yourself on the tracks -- you are free to walk away and just go home. The trolley will be here in 60 seconds.

Why would I not just go home? If I see other people jumping on the tracks and imploring me to join them, I'm going to look at them like they're crazy and walk away.

To me, the orange pill people are the folks who shovel out their driveway in the winter even when there's no immediate reason to, just their neighbors know that everybody is fine and nobody is in need of any assistance. It's what responsible adults just know to do. The green pill people are creating a dramatic situation entirely of their own making and then getting mad that people aren't joining in*. I think this is less about moral reasoning -- and its really not about game theory -- than it is about personal mood.

*Obviously I know that green pill people don't view themselves that way, and they're in the majority after all. I'm just trying to explain to the green pill crowd why us orange-pillers see ourselves as the pro-social group and the other group as trouble-makers. Green-pillers, by way of contrast, I think view themselves as rescuing innocent people in need while orange-pillers just stand there chortling from shore. We see the first green-pill taker as the guy who dives into a lake without knowing how to swim, who then proceeds to drown both himself and the guy who jumped in to help.

Or, to quote the AI that I grew up with:

Strange game, the only winning move is not to play.

I was just saying to someone a couple weeks ago that it was uncanny how that prescient that movie was with respect to the rise of AI

 

[Mister CIA]

Why would I want to be complicit in the death of anyone, let alone a child or someone with intellectual disabilities that didn't or couldn't understand the question or the ramifications?

You could die. That's one reason.

 

[Mister CIA]

Would you like to play a game of Russian roulette, or not?

 

[Grahamburn]

Why would I want to be complicit in the death of anyone, let alone a child or someone with intellectual disabilities that didn't or couldn't understand the question or the ramifications?

You could die. That's one reason.

It's funny how all living organisms are alike. When the chips are down, when the pressure is on, every creature on the face of the Earth is interested in one thing and one thing only. It's own survival.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Why would I want to be complicit in the death of anyone, let alone a child or someone with intellectual disabilities that didn't or couldn't understand the question or the ramifications?

You could die. That's one reason.

We’re all going to die

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How green-pill-takers view orange-pill-takers.

How orange-pill-takers view green-pill-takers.

 

[wlwiles]

I'm choosing the one that guarantees that I live - orange. If it's possible to do so then I'll tell everyone that I care about to do the same. But you won't catch me holding a green pill getting raptured off this spinning ball of dirt.

 

[jhib]

I assume you don't get to collaborate with anybody. I don't think I could choose the orange knowing my kids might choose the green and potentially die.

Twist: one of the little (my assumption) kids picks orange and everyone else in the extended family picks green and ends up dying. If you had picked orange, they'd still have someone there for them.

 

[Gally]

Knowing the people involved in making this decision and the likelihood of them voting one way or the other would definitely come into play. When dealing with this theoretical situation there is a good chance the vote will be over 50% for green because it's perceived as selfless and when it really doesn't matter people will want to feel good about themselves and go with the "selfless" choice. It's easier to do with no real ramifications.

However, I believe all people are inherently selfish. The degree of selfishness varies but everyone is selfish to some point. If this comes down to a truly life and death choice most people are going to choose their own life. There will be some that have a level of selfishness that will be low enough to choose green (for example those with small kids where they don't believe they will choose the "right" way and will want to protect them so pick green) but by and large I believe the majority of people in this world would choose to protect themselves over anybody else. Because of this I would likely pick orange.

After reading this thread I have also been convinced that orange is the logical correct choice taking all emotion out of it. If everyone just takes orange nobody dies. Why not do that? The train example given by @IvanKaramazov is really what brought it home. Looking at it from that perspective really makes orange the easy choice.

 

[jhib]

The whole topic of kids makes me especially uncomfortable, including the idea that under a certain age they wouldn't even be capable of understanding.

So changing parameters, what if you spoke for your whole immediate family (say in this case spouse and kids). Would any of you green voters change your mind? Is orange sufficiently less selfish of a choice because you are keeping more than yourself 100% safe, or is it still too selfish because you are only talking a few people versus the crazy number that will die?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

How green-pill-takers view orange-pill-takers.

How orange-pill-takers view green-pill-takers.

Funny.

I'm guessing the discussion and where it leads is more the "test" than the outcome, though, right? I take orange because it's a game and that, to me, is the logical action....I can't lose. If someone asks me what they should do, I say the same thing; take orange.

I understand the other argument and the rabbit holes everyone is going down and if this was a real life situation and my wife and kids were thinking about taking green...yeah, that is a moment of pause. But pure game theory/hypothetical exercise....nah, still orange.

I guess my reasoning just boils down to, I choose not to make this a very difficult decision for game purposes. But yeah, real life is not a game.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The whole topic of kids makes me especially uncomfortable, including the idea that under a certain age they wouldn't even be capable of understanding.

So changing parameters, what if you spoke for your whole immediate family (say in this case spouse and kids). Would any of you green voters change your mind? Is orange sufficiently less selfish of a choice because you are keeping more than yourself 100% safe, or is it still too selfish because you are only talking a few people versus the crazy number that will die?

Ah, but then you're getting into the question of who counts as your immediate family. If it's just spouse and kids, then I have to start worrying about my parents and my brothers and cousins and best friends. This sounds like nitpicking, but I think it actually goes to the question of how connected we feel to the society around us. Some people will only be concerned about themselves. Some will think about their family. Some about their community. And some about humanity as a whole.

I'd imagine none of us would ever choose a scenario in which our own kid would die. But what about our niece or nephew? Or our friend's kid? Or a kid halfway around the world whom we'll never meet?

I don't think there's a right answer. Different people will end up at different points on the spectrum, depending on their values and connections to their various communities.

 

[AAABatteries]

I understand the other argument and the rabbit holes everyone is going down and if this was a real life situation and my wife and kids were thinking about taking green...yeah, that is a moment of pause. But pure game theory/hypothetical exercise....nah, still orange

The way it’s presented we aren’t talking game theory, right? If so, sure - take the orange. And maybe that’s the difference here - some are thinking the ridiculous IRL scenario vs. game theory. The more I think about the IRL scenario…assuming we can’t influence others decision then I would almost feel 100% obligated to take green as there’s no chance I would want to keep living in the scenario where my wife and kids died in some small part from my decision. I can see the rationale from many that they expand that thinking to everyone.

 

[jhib]

The whole topic of kids makes me especially uncomfortable, including the idea that under a certain age they wouldn't even be capable of understanding.

So changing parameters, what if you spoke for your whole immediate family (say in this case spouse and kids). Would any of you green voters change your mind? Is orange sufficiently less selfish of a choice because you are keeping more than yourself 100% safe, or is it still too selfish because you are only talking a few people versus the crazy number that will die?

Ah, but then you're getting into the question of who counts as your immediate family. If it's just spouse and kids, then I have to start worrying about my parents and my brothers and cousins and best friends. This sounds like nitpicking, but I think it actually goes to the question of how connected we feel to the society around us. Some people will only be concerned about themselves. Some will think about their family. Some about their community. And some about humanity as a whole.

I'd imagine none of us would ever choose a scenario in which our own kid would die. But what about our niece or nephew? Or our friend's kid? Or a kid halfway around the world whom we'll never meet?

I don't think there's a right answer. Different people will end up at different points on the spectrum, depending on their values and connections to their various communities.

Yeah, good points. I also realize that I was also probably mixing people together with different reasons for picking green - potentially saving my green loved ones vs saving the general green population.

 

[dickey moe]

Orange
Everyone picking orange lives.

But you can't count on that.

 

[-OZ-]

This is why I chose beer.

Is this St Patrick’s Day?

 

[parasaurolophus]

"Why wouldn't everyone pick orange, they won't die"

"Why wouldn't everyone pick green, no one dies"

"Why wouldn't everyone pick orange, no one dies"

 

[ChiefD]

This is why I chose beer.

Is this St Patrick’s Day?

As an Irishman - every day is St Patrick's Day.

 

[parasaurolophus]

If we shut down the highway, no pedestrians can get run over.

If we all agree to not walk on the highway, no pedestrians can get run over and then we can drive on the highway.

You monster! There are people that don't understand and could accidentally walk onto the highway. How dare you drive on there.

 

[bigbottom]

What if the problem were phrased this way:

Supervillain has ten hostages bound before him. He tells the group that they each have a choice of choosing a green pill or an orange pill. If a person chooses an orange pill, they will 100% live. However, if you choose the green pill, you might get shot in the head. You see, if five or fewer people choose green, anyone who chooses green is immediately shot in the head. The only way people who choose green survive is if six or more of them choose green. But if you choose orange, you for sure live. What’s that hostage no, 3? Is there a maximum number of people who are allowed to choose orange? No. All 10 of you can choose orange. And live. Okay, on the count of three, everybody yell out what color pill you choose. One . . . Two . . . Three!

In theory, I can see people arguing for green. But when death is on the line (even if you’re not a Sicilian), I would expect most everyone to choose orange. And if you expect most everyone to choose orange, you should absolutely not choose green.

For the record, my immediate reaction was to choose green, but the logic for orange is inescapable.

 

[NutterButter]

I assume you don't get to collaborate with anybody. I don't think I could choose the orange knowing my kids might choose the green and potentially die.

Twist: one of the little (my assumption) kids picks orange and everyone else in the extended family picks green and ends up dying. If you had picked orange, they'd still have someone there for them.

And now all the selfless caring people are dead. Maybe I'm the selfish one for picking green since I wouldn't want to live if my kids picked green and are now dead. Maybe the selfless play is to pick orange just in case even if that means living without them. I guess I could just off myself. Some pleasant tuesday afternoon thoughts.

 

[Gally]

Okay, on the count of three, everybody yell out what color pill you choose. One . . . Two . . . Three!

Green.....no Orange......AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

 

[parasaurolophus]

What if the problem were phrased this way:

Supervillain has ten hostages bound before him. He tells the group that they each have a choice of choosing a green pill or an orange pill. If a person chooses an orange pill, they will 100% live. However, if you choose the green pill, you might get shot in the head. You see, if five or fewer people choose green, anyone who chooses green is immediately shot in the head. The only way people who choose green survive is if six or more of them choose green. But if you choose orange, you for sure live. What’s that hostage no, 3? Is there a maximum number of people who are allowed to choose orange? No. All 10 of you can choose orange. And live. Okay, on the count of three, everybody yell out what color pill you choose. One . . . Two . . . Three!

In theory, I can see people arguing for green. But when death is on the line (even if you’re not a Sicilian), I would expect most everyone to choose orange. And if you expect most everyone to choose orange, you should absolutely not choose green.

For the record, my immediate reaction was to choose green, but the logic for orange is inescapable.

What about the people with anxiety that might not think clearly and choose green on accident bigbottom?

And yes, I am picking on @Ilov80s here. Just making it clear so nobody thinks I am being passive aggressive. He knows he is one of my all time favorite posters and has autographed my fantasy football excuse shirt. Ok, that last part isn't true. But if I had one, and ran into him, for sure I would bust out the sharpie.

 

[brun]

Orange
Everyone picking orange lives.

But you can't count on that.

I'm pretty sure that's what the rules are.
Only green die if there are <50% green.
Nobody dies if there are >50% green.
So, everyone picking orange lives regardless of the red/green ratio.
There isn't any additional reward for picking green. So why take the chance.

 

[Ilov80s]

We are over 50% green. Everyone lives.

 

[Psychopav]

Why would I want to be complicit in the death of anyone, let alone a child or someone with intellectual disabilities that didn't or couldn't understand the question or the ramifications?

The game theory discussion is interesting, but this is what really interests me about this question.

What moral code dictates that if faced with a choice of certainly saving your own life or risking your life in an attempt to save the life of another (with an unknown result of either both of you living or both of you dying), you must choose risking your own life? If you are not the direct cause of the death, in what way are you complicit in the death, if your own survival is not assured?

In this situation in particular, is it morally wrong to choose to save your own life when every other person involved has the same option and does not "need" your self sacrifice to save their own lives on their own (by choosing the orange pill)?

Under the terms of this construct, I choose the orange pill, and I don't believe I would have feel any guilt about that. I could certainly end up with regret (what if my kids chose green and died?), but regret =/ guilt.