I can see why you’d say that, but I don’t think it works because of the asymmetry where the safety of red is unconditional, which makes red weakly dominant in terms of protecting yourself.
To be sure, if you’re trying to coordinate on blue (to rescue the inevitable blue-pushers), then you might construe red-pushers as blameworthy for undermining blue coordination, but I don’t think “protecting yourself from other red-pushers” works as a casuistry for the blame because of the logic of dominance; the blame has to be about failing to protect others.
Red isn’t weakly dominant. Suppose you know that you get the tiebreaker. And you care at least somewhat about protecting others. Then red is worse. Red is only “weakly dominant” if you don’t care in the slightest about the lives of anyone else.
At least part of this problem is about the balance of selfishness vs altruism.
Lets suppose all people involved are perfectly altruistic.
Or, equivalently, that if the majority pick red, then a randomly selected set of people die. (Equal to the number of blue’s)
Would this random-death variation change your view of the situation?
I specifically said weakly dominant “in terms of protecting yourself”, and pointed out that the case for blue depends on a form of altruism (“the only reason to choose blue is to rescue the other people who chose blue”). Please exercise better reading comprehension.
I agree that the random-death variation would make it vastly easier to coordinate on blue. The reason the dilemma is so controversial is because the perception of what other people will or should do is so susceptible to framing effects. It’s a lot easier to coordinate on red in the blender variation.
I can see why you’d say that, but I don’t think it works because of the asymmetry where the safety of red is unconditional, which makes red weakly dominant in terms of protecting yourself.
To be sure, if you’re trying to coordinate on blue (to rescue the inevitable blue-pushers), then you might construe red-pushers as blameworthy for undermining blue coordination, but I don’t think “protecting yourself from other red-pushers” works as a casuistry for the blame because of the logic of dominance; the blame has to be about failing to protect others.
Red isn’t weakly dominant. Suppose you know that you get the tiebreaker. And you care at least somewhat about protecting others. Then red is worse. Red is only “weakly dominant” if you don’t care in the slightest about the lives of anyone else.
At least part of this problem is about the balance of selfishness vs altruism.
Lets suppose all people involved are perfectly altruistic.
Or, equivalently, that if the majority pick red, then a randomly selected set of people die. (Equal to the number of blue’s)
Would this random-death variation change your view of the situation?
I specifically said weakly dominant “in terms of protecting yourself”, and pointed out that the case for blue depends on a form of altruism (“the only reason to choose blue is to rescue the other people who chose blue”). Please exercise better reading comprehension.
I agree that the random-death variation would make it vastly easier to coordinate on blue. The reason the dilemma is so controversial is because the perception of what other people will or should do is so susceptible to framing effects. It’s a lot easier to coordinate on red in the blender variation.
The random death version does feel different. Interestingly, blue becomes “murder a random person unless too many people pick blue”.