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

[Gally]

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)?

This isn't a moral question at all as you have pointed out. It's not like it is a guarantee other people die just because you chose orange. Those people choosing green have a choice to live or die regardless of your choice. They are independent choices that really have nothing at all to do with you. Therefore you are not being immoral by choosing orange.

 

[Psychopav]

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)?

This isn't a moral question at all as you have pointed out. It's not like it is a guarantee other people die just because you chose orange. Those people choosing green have a choice to live or die regardless of your choice. They are independent choices that really have nothing at all to do with you. Therefore you are not being immoral by choosing orange.

I agree, but a lot of people on this board (and in our society in general I think) might disagree and consider an orange pill tantamount to pulling the trigger on executing green pill folks.

 

[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.

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.

I know, it's just a beautiful feel-good conversation isn't it?

But I do think that choosing orange is really in the best interest of any loved ones you are considering.
Assuming that what they choose is 100% out of your control, then whether they live or die is also basically 100% out of your control (0.0000000000...001% chance that your choice affects the result of the final tally). Choose orange so you know you can be there for those who survive this messed up situation. Green seems the more selfish choice if you're only thinking of your own feelings and well-being when considering orange and the possibility of living without them.

 

[Gally]

I agree, but a lot of people on this board (and in our society in general I think) might disagree and consider an orange pill tantamount to pulling the trigger on executing green pill folks.

Except the free will part. Those green choosers had the free will to stay alive. Your choice didn't kill them. Theirs did.

(I do agree with your assessment that society in general will disagree with our logic)

 

[Spartans Rule]

I suppose how the green pill kills you is an important part of the equation. I've been operating under the assumption that you just harmlessly fade out of existence. If the green pill gives you ebola, obviously I'm going orange.

But assuming it's a painless death, green could be the preferred option for a lot of people in horrible situations who don't have the means to safely end their own lives. Maybe if I take green in some perceived societal interest, I end up prolonging the agony for a bunch of terminal cancer patients and child sex workers.

 

[dkp993]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

 

[fruity pebbles]

We are over 50% green. Everyone lives.

I think we should kill the oranges on principle.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Green. Everyone lives. Pretty easy.

 

[AAABatteries]

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)?

This isn't a moral question at all as you have pointed out. It's not like it is a guarantee other people die just because you chose orange. Those people choosing green have a choice to live or die regardless of your choice. They are independent choices that really have nothing at all to do with you. Therefore you are not being immoral by choosing orange.

In my reasoning I’m less concerned with whether it’s moral - mainly because it’s a ridiculous hypothetical- but rather the aftermath of my decision. Sure, I may be alive but if ~50% of my friends and family are dead I just couldn’t live with my decision even if logic dictates we should all collectively choose orange.

To put it another way - people that accidentally kill others frequently have issues throughout their life dealing with it. Weighing whether I would want to live the remainder of my life dealing with that is part of my thinking. I know myself well enough to know I couldn’t just accept that some people chose green and were “stupid” - I would feel guilt.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We are over 50% green. Everyone lives.

I think we should kill the oranges on principle.

The interesting thing about this is that you have us outnumbered two-to-one, but my people are more cold-blooded. What we lack in numbers, we make up for in ruthless rationality. In real life, orange-pillers would correctly anticipate reprisals from surviving green-pillers well in advance, and we'd have organized ourselves into an entrenched militia by the time you guys get tired of patting yourself on the back for being so nice. You guys are the Persians, but we're the Spartans. Only not as ripped.

 

[Ilov80s]

We are over 50% green. Everyone lives.

I think we should kill the oranges on principle.

The interesting thing about this is that you have us outnumbered two-to-one, but my people are more cold-blooded. What we lack in numbers, we make up for in ruthless rationality. In real life, orange-pillers would correctly anticipate reprisals from surviving green-pillers well in advance, and we'd have organized ourselves into an entrenched militia by the time you guys get tired of patting yourself on the back for being so nice. You guys are the Persians, but we're the Spartans. Only not as ripped.

So you get slaughtered at Thermopylae and allow us to burn cities to the ground, take control over the peninsula?

 

[dickey moe]

With the wording of the options as they are, and knowing that the pool of voters may include individuals who aren't particularly thoughtful, what do you think the more likely outcome would be?

 

[-OZ-]

This is why I chose beer.

Is this St Patrick’s Day?

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

i identify as an Irish Viking.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

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)?

This isn't a moral question at all as you have pointed out. It's not like it is a guarantee other people die just because you chose orange. Those people choosing green have a choice to live or die regardless of your choice. They are independent choices that really have nothing at all to do with you. Therefore you are not being immoral by choosing orange.

What about the people who do not make a choice or choose none? How do they work in the 50% calculation?

 

[bigbottom]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

Read my supervillain with hostages scenario above. If you were one of the hostages, and answering HONESTLY, what color pill do you yell out with a gun to your head?

 

[parasaurolophus]

The main reason why I think this is interesting is because when I saw it the first time, I just assumed that obviously everybody would pick orange, and I was shocked to see that the result actually went the other way. And despite reading a large number of responses to this, the green pill runs very strongly against every moral intuition I possess. The fact that folks intuit this problem so differently makes me wonder if it's an ethical equivalent of "what color is the dress?"

I have a theory that that the "green people" are reading some things into the question that I'm not, but I'm not sure about that at all.

It does not surprise me one bit that the arguments and votes lean green.

Refuse to believe if it was a real vote that anything other than a small minority are voting green.

 

[dkp993]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

Read my supervillain with hostages scenario above. If you were one of the hostages, and answering HONESTLY, what color pill do you yell out with a gun to your head?

I did, hence the “while it’s a good scenario you paint there” comment.

 

[parasaurolophus]

If we could count on 50% voting green we would almost never see a public beating. We would always have good Samaritans stepping in.

 

[bigbottom]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

Read my supervillain with hostages scenario above. If you were one of the hostages, and answering HONESTLY, what color pill do you yell out with a gun to your head?

I did, hence the “while it’s a good scenario you paint there” comment.

And what color would you yell in that scenario?

 

[Gally]

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)?

This isn't a moral question at all as you have pointed out. It's not like it is a guarantee other people die just because you chose orange. Those people choosing green have a choice to live or die regardless of your choice. They are independent choices that really have nothing at all to do with you. Therefore you are not being immoral by choosing orange.

What about the people who do not make a choice or choose none? How do they work in the 50% calculation?

Don't know. It's not my question. My understanding was that every person had to choose. There was no way to abstain.

 

[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 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.

It's easy for me. I have young children and have no guarantee that they pick orange. I know many other people that are in the same boat. I wouldn't want to live in a world where there are millions of grieving parents of young children because of some stupid game theory. That's not a place I want to be.

 

[dkp993]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

Read my supervillain with hostages scenario above. If you were one of the hostages, and answering HONESTLY, what color pill do you yell out with a gun to your head?

I did, hence the “while it’s a good scenario you paint there” comment.

And what color would you yell in that scenario?

Well there’s the rub right. Logic dictates green (as I laid out in my post above) but in your scenario emotions come into play as I have my family (who I am the provider for and count on me) to think about so I can’t risk it. So I forgo logic and play it safe and take the orange pill.

 

[nightmare]

You are not saving anybody. We all make the choice.

Kids ARE NOT Stupid. Take this pill and you live. Take that pill and there is a chance you die.
The kids take the orange pill. If you think different, you have forgotten what it is like to be a kid.

This is not a scenario where you are on a street and saving someone from falling through an open manhole.

 

[Gally]

Kids ARE NOT Stupid. Take this pill and you live. Take that pill and there is a chance you die.
The kids take the orange pill. If you think different, you have forgotten what it is like to be a kid.

This to me is something many of us in this thread aren't really touching on. It was one of the first things I thought of when it comes to kids. The get told take this pill and you live no matter what or take this pill and there is a chance you will die. I think 99.9999% of the kids take the pill that lets them live no matter what. It really is the simplest choice. Over thinking the question is what causes a lot of the dilemma.

 

[Dickies]

I would pick the orange pill and it would be the easiest decision of my life. Everyone who picks the orange pill lives regardless, so if 100% of the population picks the orange pill we can cut the whole Thanos situation out of the equation entirely. I'm amazed anyone picked green.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, I disagree with a few other posters in that I'm an orange-piller but I don't think the green-pillers are just virtue signalling, or that all of them would vote differently in real life. I mean, sure, probably some of them would. But the comments around this problem remind me a lot of the way we used to argue about the Monty Hall problem. It's not that we simply disagree. Its that each side thinks that they're obviously right and the other side is just being silly. It's like trying to talk a utilitarian out of utilitarianism. It's a hard-wiring thing.

 

[dkp993]

I would pick the orange pill and it would be the easiest decision of my life. Everyone who picks the orange pill lives regardless, so if 100% of the population picks the orange pill we can cut the whole Thanos situation out of the equation entirely. I'm amazed anyone picked green.

I’m amazed the bolded keeps getting brought up as an argument option. The same exact thing holds true for the green. So It’s not a differentiator. But anything less the 100 means death for non orange takers. With green anything more the exactly 50% means Zero death at all.

 

[bigbottom]

Also, I disagree with a few other posters in that I'm an orange-piller but I don't think the green-pillers are just virtue signalling, or that all of them would vote differently in real life. I mean, sure, probably some of them would. But the comments around this problem remind me a lot of the way we used to argue about the Monty Hall problem. It's not that we simply disagree. Its that each side thinks that they're obviously right and the other side is just being silly. It's like trying to talk a utilitarian out of utilitarianism. It's a hard-wiring thing.

Well, with the debate over the Monty Hall problem, one side actually was right.

 

[AAABatteries]

Kids ARE NOT Stupid

Worst take in the entire thread.

 

[Dickies]

I would pick the orange pill and it would be the easiest decision of my life. Everyone who picks the orange pill lives regardless, so if 100% of the population picks the orange pill we can cut the whole Thanos situation out of the equation entirely. I'm amazed anyone picked green.

I’m amazed the bolded keeps getting brought up as an argument option. The same exact thing holds true for the green. So It’s not a differentiator. But anything less the 100 means death for non orange takers. With green anything more the exactly 50% means Zero death at all.

One option allows me to make a decision that has a known outcome. The other option not only has an unknown outcome, it relies on 50+% of the population making a suboptimal decision in order to achieve a positive outcome.

 

[bigbottom]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

Read my supervillain with hostages scenario above. If you were one of the hostages, and answering HONESTLY, what color pill do you yell out with a gun to your head?

I did, hence the “while it’s a good scenario you paint there” comment.

And what color would you yell in that scenario?

Well there’s the rub right. Logic dictates green (as I laid out in my post above) but in your scenario emotions come into play as I have my family (who I am the provider for and count on me) to think about so I can’t risk it. So I forgo logic and play it safe and take the orange pill.

How does my scenario differ in any material way from the problem as originally presented? Why would you ever risk orphaning your children by choosing green? Indeed, in my scenario, your single vote has an exponentially greater chance of making a difference than when your vote is 1 of 8 billion. And yet you still chose orange.

 

[belljr]

Interesting. I think the logic dictates you take orange

 

[dkp993]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

Read my supervillain with hostages scenario above. If you were one of the hostages, and answering HONESTLY, what color pill do you yell out with a gun to your head?

I did, hence the “while it’s a good scenario you paint there” comment.

And what color would you yell in that scenario?

Well there’s the rub right. Logic dictates green (as I laid out in my post above) but in your scenario emotions come into play as I have my family (who I am the provider for and count on me) to think about so I can’t risk it. So I forgo logic and play it safe and take the orange pill.

How does my scenario differ in any material way from the problem as originally presented? Why would you ever risk orphaning your children by choosing green? Indeed, in my scenario, your single vote has an exponentially greater chance of making a difference than when your vote is 1 of 8 billion. And yet you still chose orange.

We’re debating what the answer should be. In that I say green is obvious and logical. Faced with the actual decision on the line and orphaning my kid I say **** should and logic.

It’s the theory vs the practical application.

 

[bigbottom]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

Read my supervillain with hostages scenario above. If you were one of the hostages, and answering HONESTLY, what color pill do you yell out with a gun to your head?

I did, hence the “while it’s a good scenario you paint there” comment.

And what color would you yell in that scenario?

Well there’s the rub right. Logic dictates green (as I laid out in my post above) but in your scenario emotions come into play as I have my family (who I am the provider for and count on me) to think about so I can’t risk it. So I forgo logic and play it safe and take the orange pill.

How does my scenario differ in any material way from the problem as originally presented? Why would you ever risk orphaning your children by choosing green? Indeed, in my scenario, your single vote has an exponentially greater chance of making a difference than when your vote is 1 of 8 billion. And yet you still chose orange.

We’re debating what the answer should be. In that I say green is obvious and logical. Faced with the actual decision on the line and orphaning my kid I say **** should and logic.

It’s the theory vs the practical application.

And using logic, doesn’t it stand to reason that if you would say “**** should and logic” and pick orange if actually faced with the situation, that others answering green in theory would also say “**** should and logic” and pick orange if faced with the choice in real life, thus rendering the likelihood of achieving greater than 50% green votes if lives were actually on the line exceedingly remote? And if that is the case, isn’t it then the logical choice to pick orange?

 

[bigbottom]

but the logic for orange is inescapable

While it’s a good good scenario you paint there. I disagree with this statement.

With the orange pill for everyone to survive you need 100% participation. But for everyone to survive with the green, you only need fractionally more then 50%. With both pills being equal on the hundred percent participation front that cancels that option out as an advantage over the other. So logic dictates choosing the green pill, as even if a few act selfishly the whole still survive.

Read my supervillain with hostages scenario above. If you were one of the hostages, and answering HONESTLY, what color pill do you yell out with a gun to your head?

I did, hence the “while it’s a good scenario you paint there” comment.

And what color would you yell in that scenario?

Well there’s the rub right. Logic dictates green (as I laid out in my post above) but in your scenario emotions come into play as I have my family (who I am the provider for and count on me) to think about so I can’t risk it. So I forgo logic and play it safe and take the orange pill.

How does my scenario differ in any material way from the problem as originally presented? Why would you ever risk orphaning your children by choosing green? Indeed, in my scenario, your single vote has an exponentially greater chance of making a difference than when your vote is 1 of 8 billion. And yet you still chose orange.

We’re debating what the answer should be. In that I say green is obvious and logical. Faced with the actual decision on the line and orphaning my kid I say **** should and logic.

It’s the theory vs the practical application.

Put another way, you’ve just made the case that orange is the logical choice.

 

[The Z Machine]

Orange is the logical choice, but there are many that will act illogical, including those under 2-3 years old. There's only one way to save those infants.

 

[Gally]

Orange is the logical choice, but there are many that will act illogical, including those under 2-3 years old. There's only one way to save those infants.

Which pill do you think a 2 year old will choose?

"take this pill nothing bad happens to you"
"take this pill you might die"

You think they take the pill that might kill them?

 

[WDIK2]

Choose orange so you know you can be there for those who survive this messed up situation.

I would rather be a part of trying to prevent the messed up situation before it happens.

Given 1 minute to decide (or you die anyway) and no outside input allowed, many are picking green because that "everyone lives" part really sticks out.

 

[Don Quixote]

Orange is the logical choice, but there are many that will act illogical, including those under 2-3 years old. There's only one way to save those infants.

Which pill do you think a 2 year old will choose?

"take this pill nothing bad happens to you"
"take this pill you might die"

You think they take the pill that might kill them?

Is it presented to them that way though? I was assuming asked the question in the OP, and then would need to logically figure it out.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Saw same scenario worded differently.

There is a room-sized blender that kills everyone who steps into it. But, if 50% or more of the people answering this poll step into the blender, there will be too much resistance and it will fail to start and everyone who steps in will be fine. Obviously, if you don't step into the blender nothing bad can happen.Do you step into the blender?

16k votes so far.

77.5% to 22.5% not to jump in blender.

 

[dickey moe]

Orange may be the logical choice, but your pool of voters is going to consist of a lot of illogical people. That was the main motivator for me choosing green, which makes me "feel" like it was the best choice to prevent anyone from dying. I also believe the wording with the emphasis on living (associated with green) vs. dying (associated with orange) would be influential for most voters.

I realize paradoxes abound with this one.

 

[dickey moe]

Saw same scenario worded differently.

There is a room-sized blender that kills everyone who steps into it. But, if 50% or more of the people answering this poll step into the blender, there will be too much resistance and it will fail to start and everyone who steps in will be fine. Obviously, if you don't step into the blender nothing bad can happen.Do you step into the blender?

16k votes so far.

77.5% to 22.5% not to jump in blender.

The wording of these questions is very important.

 

[Gally]

Orange is the logical choice, but there are many that will act illogical, including those under 2-3 years old. There's only one way to save those infants.

Which pill do you think a 2 year old will choose?

"take this pill nothing bad happens to you"
"take this pill you might die"

You think they take the pill that might kill them?

Is it presented to them that way though? I was assuming asked the question in the OP, and then would need to logically figure it out.

I made the assumption that the question would be put in such a way a 2 yr old could understand it. I doubt many 2 yr olds would understand what 50% means. I would hope that the theoretical situation would at least make it clear to the people's intellectual ability to some degree.

 

[Ilov80s]

Saw same scenario worded differently.

There is a room-sized blender that kills everyone who steps into it. But, if 50% or more of the people answering this poll step into the blender, there will be too much resistance and it will fail to start and everyone who steps in will be fine. Obviously, if you don't step into the blender nothing bad can happen.Do you step into the blender?

16k votes so far.

77.5% to 22.5% not to jump in blender.

Not sure why anyone would choose to jump in the blender (I realize this is the same scenario in theory) but a blender vs a pill is completely different in how people will answer. People take pills all the time, it's normal. And in that scenario, you have to take a pill regardless. Nobody with any desire to live will enter a blender and the option is right there to not enter the blender. The pill scenario would change if the options were take a pill or don't take a pill. It's sort of illogical that it matters but as a human it absolutely makes a difference.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I change my vote to Orange. There really is no consequence to it because everyone has the same information and options.

 

[shuke]

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)?

This isn't a moral question at all as you have pointed out. It's not like it is a guarantee other people die just because you chose orange. Those people choosing green have a choice to live or die regardless of your choice. They are independent choices that really have nothing at all to do with you. Therefore you are not being immoral by choosing orange.

Everyone's choice is independent, but their fate is not.

 

[shuke]

I change my vote to Orange. There really is no consequence to it because everyone has the same information and options.

Do we need any further proof that those picking orange don't think there are consequences to their actions?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I change my vote to Orange. There really is no consequence to it because everyone has the same information and options.

Do we need any further proof that those picking orange don't think there are consequences to their actions?

I misinterpreted it earlier and now don’t really see a consequence to orange — the only consequence impacts those choosing green. And there is no real reason to choose green because anyone who wants to live can just pick orange. It’s like the choices are missing something.

 

[shuke]

And there is no real reason to choose green because anyone who wants to live can just pick orange.

What if you want other people other than yourself to live?

 

[dickey moe]

Do empaths/altruists favor green and narcissists favor orange?