This problem is not a utilitarian expected utility calculation. If you redpill and someone dies partly because you redpilled, well, some people don’t care and others can’t take it.
That is an argument that proves too much, because to a utilitarian, every decision problem is an expected utility calculation.
No-one dies because I redpilled. The blue-pillers committed suicide for no reason. I mean, who do the blue-pillers think they are saving? Other blue-pillers. But who are those ones saving? Other blue-pillers. And so on. Nothing of value is actually being saved.
It’s like one of those scams where money is moved around in a complicated way and somehow everyone is supposed to end up with more, yet nothing of value is being created. Or a perpetual motion machine that looks really complicated, but there is no source of energy, so we know without analysing it that it can’t work. Blue-pillers be like an ant mill.
However, please note the recursion. Those who take the blue pill are people who risk their lives to save madmen, idiots, and people who risk their lives to save madmen and idiots. Would you risk your life to save such people? It seems, at least, less obvious that doing so is of no benefit to you.
In real-world analogs of the conundrum, the way to deal with madmen and idiots is to keep the pills away from them. Personally, I’ll respect the people who devote their lives to saving those who cannot save themselves, but not the ones who only destroy themselves in the attempt; and I will not be in either class.
All else being equal, do you prefer to live in a society where many members are madmen and idiots or in a society where few members are madmen and idiots?
Latter, but definitely not by means like “letting them die”.
Especially because from POV of some transhuman being with 1000 IQ, I’m sure a madman and idiot.
That’s where bluepillers disagree. They feel they cannot hide behind the numbers. Someone WILL bluepill, humans are diverse enough for that to guarantee to happen. There is an easy way to contribute to their survival, unless you don’t have empathy for people who are not like you. As you say “Nothing of value is actually being saved.”—bluepillers are not people, as far as you are concerned.
When I said “nothing of value is actually being saved”, I was referring to these facts:
Before the pills: no-one dies.
Best possible outcome: no-one dies.
Everyone is people, and the best possible outcome is merely the status quo. No value has been created, it has merely been risked for no reason.
A problem with the scenario is that it is not isomorphic to any real situation, and people tend to respond according to what it emotionally feels like, which is collective action (yay!) vs. individual action (boo!). The nearest real-world version I can think of is where there is an improvement on the status quo that can only be achieved if a large number of people unite, but smaller numbers of people striving for it will be penalised. For example, overthrowing an authoritarian regime. The obstacle there is usually lack of common knowledge of what people want and coordination on when it is to happen, which the regime tries to prevent.
But in the original example, everyone runs as fast as they can to stay in the same place.
“Before the pills” is not a valid reference point, because “not taking pills at all” is not an option in original dilemma.
Default state here is “everybody uses bad decision theory and bunch of people dies”.
Imagine situation where you already know that exactly one person is needed to take blue pill so everyone lives. Correct decision here is to take blue pill, if you value others’ life.
Everything else here is a question of probability of such situation and various logical decision theory puzzles.
Your scenario is not clear to me. In the problem as given, if no-one takes the blue pill, everyone lives. What happens in your scenario if no-one takes the blue pill?
Would that also be your analysis of arabaga’s restatement of the problem?
This problem is not a utilitarian expected utility calculation. If you redpill and someone dies partly because you redpilled, well, some people don’t care and others can’t take it.
That is an argument that proves too much, because to a utilitarian, every decision problem is an expected utility calculation.
No-one dies because I redpilled. The blue-pillers committed suicide for no reason. I mean, who do the blue-pillers think they are saving? Other blue-pillers. But who are those ones saving? Other blue-pillers. And so on. Nothing of value is actually being saved.
It’s like one of those scams where money is moved around in a complicated way and somehow everyone is supposed to end up with more, yet nothing of value is being created. Or a perpetual motion machine that looks really complicated, but there is no source of energy, so we know without analysing it that it can’t work. Blue-pillers be like an ant mill.
Please see this analysis, which is a somewhat more complete answer to “who do the blue-pillers think they are saving?”.
Exactly my view.
I see literally zero problems with saving lives of madmans and idiots.
Same here. I take my hat off to those who dedicate their lives to doing that, but I won’t be one of them.
However, please note the recursion. Those who take the blue pill are people who risk their lives to save madmen, idiots, and people who risk their lives to save madmen and idiots. Would you risk your life to save such people? It seems, at least, less obvious that doing so is of no benefit to you.
(Of course, I would still choose the red pill.)
In real-world analogs of the conundrum, the way to deal with madmen and idiots is to keep the pills away from them. Personally, I’ll respect the people who devote their lives to saving those who cannot save themselves, but not the ones who only destroy themselves in the attempt; and I will not be in either class.
Yep, makes sense.
All else being equal, do you prefer to live in a society where many members are madmen and idiots or in a society where few members are madmen and idiots?
Latter, but definitely not by means like “letting them die”. Especially because from POV of some transhuman being with 1000 IQ, I’m sure a madman and idiot.
That’s where bluepillers disagree. They feel they cannot hide behind the numbers. Someone WILL bluepill, humans are diverse enough for that to guarantee to happen. There is an easy way to contribute to their survival, unless you don’t have empathy for people who are not like you. As you say “Nothing of value is actually being saved.”—bluepillers are not people, as far as you are concerned.
When I said “nothing of value is actually being saved”, I was referring to these facts:
Before the pills: no-one dies.
Best possible outcome: no-one dies.
Everyone is people, and the best possible outcome is merely the status quo. No value has been created, it has merely been risked for no reason.
A problem with the scenario is that it is not isomorphic to any real situation, and people tend to respond according to what it emotionally feels like, which is collective action (yay!) vs. individual action (boo!). The nearest real-world version I can think of is where there is an improvement on the status quo that can only be achieved if a large number of people unite, but smaller numbers of people striving for it will be penalised. For example, overthrowing an authoritarian regime. The obstacle there is usually lack of common knowledge of what people want and coordination on when it is to happen, which the regime tries to prevent.
But in the original example, everyone runs as fast as they can to stay in the same place.
“Before the pills” is not a valid reference point, because “not taking pills at all” is not an option in original dilemma. Default state here is “everybody uses bad decision theory and bunch of people dies”.
Whichever decision you think is the bad one, if everyone does it then everyone lives.
There are plenty of bad decisions, like “randomize” or “do whatever feel like it”.
Imagine situation where you already know that exactly one person is needed to take blue pill so everyone lives. Correct decision here is to take blue pill, if you value others’ life. Everything else here is a question of probability of such situation and various logical decision theory puzzles.
Your scenario is not clear to me. In the problem as given, if no-one takes the blue pill, everyone lives. What happens in your scenario if no-one takes the blue pill?
I mean scenario “There are 50 red-pillers and 49 blue-pillers, if you take blue pill, everyone lives, if not, blue-pillers die”.
Well, sure, that’s like I just have to press a button and save 49 people. I’ll do that. But no-one will be in that situation.
And still we see different results in polls.