MYSTERIOUS STRANGER: *hands woman box* If you press this button, someone you don't know dies
WOMAN: Ok *presses button*
STRANGER: Whoa, I didn't even tell you about the money
WOMAN: I can't afford to pay much
STRANGER: No, you don't pay
WOMAN: Oh good *presses button again*
STRANGER: Jesus Christ
"If you could press a button that would give you a great deal of money, but it would cause someone you don’t know in a distant part of the world to die, then you would have a good model for how our current economy works. Welcome to Night Vale"
Someone you don’t know in a distant part of the world will always die, whether you push the button or not. There’s no way of knowing if that person died because you pushed the button. Not pushing the button simply makes no sense.
However, if you DON'T push the button then you can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that person's death had nothing to do with pushing the button. Therefore, not pushing the button is the only ethical answer.
Just use a portion of the money to save two lives that would otherwise be lost if you didn't have the money and hammer on it like it's a vending machine with a stuck candy bar.
That's the (button free) premise of the short story 'The Murder of the Mandarin' by Arnold Bennett, from early 20th century. I remember it from a murder mystery anthology I had as a teenager. Unless that story is what sparked this topic in the first place, in which case I'll shut up again!
And, per the Twilight Zone principles this button operates under, those who push the button are assured that the next person who gets to make that choice will be someone they don’t know.
I agree 100%, but I just don’t trust the button guy. It’s an intrinsically unethical button, so in my mind it’s less unethical to lie about the functioning of the button. Side note: it’s a good thing he didn’t make it a lever, because it’s way more fun to yank those than push a button.
