u/Chigi_Rishin

Humanity has been researching the drug to cure aging. It doesn't quite work yet. Call that Drug Red.

However, a 100% deadly virus appears out of nowhere.

It interacts with the incomplete Drug Red, and it somehow now works, also inactivating the virus.

The cure is practically free, and all people on Earth can have it (and people can also choose to give it to the sick, the babies, the mentally ill, and every other 'additions' to the problem).

There is another competing solution to the deadly virus. Which is another virus, coupled with a different drug, Drug Blue. Also practically free. If >50% of people inject this virus and Drug Blue, they will also resist the deadly virus and not die of old age.

If the >50% fraction is not reached, people who used Drug Blue will survive for now, but still die of old age. The drugs are incompatible with each other, hence it's now impossible to cure aging for people who chose Drug Blue.

If people Default and choose nothing at all, they will all die from the deadly virus, very soon. And it counts as having taking Drug Red, for percentage calculation purposes.

 

(If anyone plans to say that 'you can just hide and never catch the virus', then you are dumb or arguing in bad faith. This is a hypothetical thought experiment and that option doesn't exist! Stop finding ways to avoid a proper answer!)

 

---

So, to summarize.

Red Drug option - Inject Drug Red, that guarantees survival, curing both the deadly virus and aging.

Blue Drug option - Inject Drug Blue and another virus. If more than 50% of people choose this, they live, and also don't age. If less than 50% choose this, they don't die from the deadly virus, but will inevitably die of old age because the drugs are incompatible.

Default - Die very soon from the deadly virus. Counts as Red option for majority purposes.

 

Do note, that neither in the original problem, or this one, is the Red Option somehow causing people to die. It's the Blue Option that creates the danger in the first place.

This is what I can also summarize as the following rule.

One option has complete invulnerability; the other option merely has conditioned safety (thus, vulnerability).

No matter the framing, the rational answer is to choose invulnerability.

 

>!It grates my mind at the stupidity of people claiming that somehow the Blue button is 'default safety' in the original problem. I actually can't tell if people are that dumb, or they just take the intuitive/emotional answer and then rationalize it later (with completely bogus arguments, of course). It's amazing how even apparently intelligent people just lock-in with emotional arguments (or deranged social virtue signaling) and refuse to apply actual intelligence; often, more 'intelligent' people come up with more complex and convoluted explanations, even when their defense is illogical–Confirmation Bias.!<

 

---

This version is quite modified, but the essential question remains the same.

 

Red - Live, no matter what.

Blue - Die, *unless >*50% also choose this.

I've seen people complain about preachy MCs, with the quintessential example probably being Jason in HWFWM; a story that by itself is also divisive in people's preferences.

Considering my current understanding, Paranoid Mage would also be considering preachy.

So what's the deal? What does it mean to be preachy, and why is that bad? Why is not being preachy, good?

Just because 'preachy' is like more on the nose? As opposed to what, MCs rarely ever stating the thought-process behind their actions? Or having no apparent ideology/morality/values altogether? Is that supposed to be better?

Anyone that has a solid ideology is preachy now? Would you rather characters not display their ideology?

I mean, it's one thing to have one, and another to hammer people with it at every single opportunity. Of course it would be annoying to see it every chapter or so.

But it's perfectly reasonable for these things to appear a few times in an entire book!

---

In short, I would say that regarding values and such, stories can have 2 axes. They can be consistent or inconsistent. Clear or unclear.

For consistency, it's about not being a hypocrite, and values being all over the place. MC saying he hate slaves, then allowing friends to have them or even having one himself.

For clarity, it's about how much the story focuses on and explains what the values actually are, and how often things are stated out loud. That is, if characters state their goals and motivation for doing things, it's more clear. If we only see pure action and no statements of why they are acting in one way or another, it's more unclear.

---

If it's clear, why is is so bad that it crops up again and again? What do you expect will happen?? If MC lives by some code, that code will tend to appear quite a lot! It's the cause for the MC's actions!

Of course the opposite (being unclear), has no reason to appear. For MCs with simply inconsistent morality, how can it be on the nose, right? How can someone 'preach' to both sides?

Or maybe MC highly tolerates offense to his values, and doesn't push back. Again, is that supposed to be good??

If an MCs goal is to become king, or defeat some enemy, or achieve virtually any goal, isn't that basically 'preaching' that such goal is important? In order to not be preachy in any way, MC would need to have no goals or values whatsoever.

So, what exactly makes an MC or story preachy? And what is not? What's the objective difference? Because so far, I'm not seeing it. It just seems that people complain because the 'preached' ideology happens to be one they disagree with; or, that maybe people don't have any ideology, and thus don't like when MCs are sure of their own.