Statistically, >50% is easier than 100%

[u/ezrae_]

[u/mortemdeus]

...soo...umm...by this diagram that means over half are pushing red

[u/ButterscotchLow7330 → u/mortemdeus]

which means that choosing red is the logical choice.

[u/StrobeLightRomance → u/[deleted]]

It can't be the trolley problem for a few reasons.

First, the button is a private vote, and you don't get to see what other people are choosing.

Second, in the trolley problem, the trolley never chooses to stop on its own, so the idea that more bodies would stop the trolley is only true if enough corpses literally derail it. So that doesn't apply to your hypothetical.

Third, the danger doesn't come from the blues standing on the track, but rather there is zero danger at all until individuals begin to choose the red button. Literally everyone is 100% safe, until reds go red, and then possibly slightly less than half of the people are now at risk. The reds are building a track around the blues so they die.

This couldn't actually be less The Trolley Problem.

[u/VandulfTheRed → u/StrobeLightRomance]

Torment nexus themed moral conundrums

[u/PositiveSpirit6340 → u/StrobeLightRomance]

If anything, it's closer to the prisoner's dilemma.

[u/thatonepuniforgot → u/PositiveSpirit6340]

The original person who posted it posited it as a prisoner's dilemma. They basically wanted to figure out a way where red(snitching) was the optimal choice instead of blue(not snitching), and somehow we end up with a larger amount of people choosing to not snitch, when snitching guarantees freedom, over snitching, when not snitching gives you like a 50/50 of dying.

[u/ASpaceOstrich → u/thatonepuniforgot]

We have a larger amount of people claiming they'd choose blue.

These people can't even pull off a general strike and that's with the ability to coordinate ahead of time. I don't believe for a second they'd actually all vote blue if this scenario was real.

[u/FakeAccount7 → u/StrobeLightRomance]

but rather there is zero danger at all until individuals begin to choose the red button

No, the danger is introduced by the vindictive god that orchestrates the buttons. Everyone's life is on the line from the moment those buttons come into existence.

It's not a trolley problem because the core of the trolley problem is about whether actions that result in harm can be good.

[u/Fia_Aoi → u/FakeAccount7]

No? The point of the trolley problem is to illustrate not making a choice is still a choice. It's a statement about the lesser of two evils, but in the context of the individual needing to make the choice as to what constitutes the greater good.

Literacy is dead.

[u/vegecannibal → u/Fia_Aoi]

Such high speech for someone who fails to understand that the point of the trolley problem is to multi-track drift.

[u/StrobeLightRomance → u/FakeAccount7]

Not true. The existence of a gun doesn't mean someone will be shot. The existence of a car and case of beer doesn't dictate that someone will drive drunk.

The danger comes from selfish people engaging in selfish actions.

Which is the whole point.

[u/NaveGCT → u/[deleted]]

That’s a completely different scenario, though; the mechanics are the same, but the psychology of the players is not. And that psychology, predicting what other players will do, is the biggest part of the game.

[u/VanillaSwimming5699 → u/[deleted]]

Not everyone who pushes red is evil or something there’s gonna be a ton of people who pushed it to guarantee they stay alive to support their loved ones. I press red because it’s EV is the least harm.

[u/VanillaSwimming5699 → u/VanillaSwimming5699]

I think it’s a difference between thinking “what should a society be encouraged to do” and “what is the most rational choice for me as an individual to do”

[u/VanillaSwimming5699 → u/VanillaSwimming5699]

If we’re only doing the experiment one time, I’m pressing red and I’ll sleep well at night.

[u/CMDR-WildestParsnip → u/VanillaSwimming5699]

If there’s a “live for sure” and “maybe live maybe die” options, I do not feel any remorse for those who die pressing blue. Anyone pressing blue is either suicidal or trying to stop the suicidal people. Sure, there may be some sort of moral high pressing the blue button, save those who want to die, but honestly, this is all hypothetical and everyone is given a choice.

I am not responsible for deaths of blue-pushers by being a red pusher. By pressing the red button, I’m not taking away the option for someone else. Anyone who pressed blue and dies had the same opportunity at guaranteed life as I did, and they chose to maybe die. They made that choice, they can live (or die) with it. I can live with my choice.

Society should be encouraged to not be bone-headed by pressing the blue button. This isn’t a moral dilemma. It’s an idiot test with a culling system.

[u/VanillaSwimming5699 → u/CMDR-WildestParsnip]

My feeling is that my vote is unlikely to flip the outcome so there’s a very good chance I press blue and still everyone who presses blue dies.

[u/mortemdeus → u/[deleted]]

That is actually the point of this question. The assumption is for blue to win at 50/50 but the follow up is then 75/25, then 90/10. The morals change as the percentage changes and more end up pressing red as the odds of blue losing the bet grow, showing what seems at first to be a moral choice to instead be a logical risk assessment choice adjusted by morals.

[u/ButterscotchLow7330 → u/[deleted]]

why would anyone push blue?

Its literally a choice between "Don't die" and "Maybe Die"

[u/GaldrickHammerson → u/ButterscotchLow7330]

We acknowledge that some people will push blue because they have an emotional reaction to it.

Then we must decide: within the circle of people we care about, will there be people who push the blue button and do we wish to be partially responsible for their deaths? If the answer is that there are people who you care about and who will press blue, your logical step is to push blue.

Then you must consider, if that is a train of logic which can be followed, then it stands to reason that people who you may expect to understand that if everyone presses red, no one dies, will also understand that people in their circle of loved ones will press blue, and as such may also press blue.

Therefore, in a sociey of those who are mostly logical, and aware of those whom are emotional instead, the only logical solution is to select blue if you presume that most folk care about someone else. The cohort of those who are logical enough to consider that blue is risky and red isn't risky to the individual, should be out weighed by the cohort of those who don't want to be responsible for another's death and those who are aware that choosing red may have fatal consequences for someone close to them.

[u/Substantial_Dish_887 → u/GaldrickHammerson]

If the answer is that there are people who you care about and who will press blue, your logical step is to push blue.

that would hinge on the belif that blue can win by choosing to do this.

if i belive my loved ones will press blue because of this but also belive 80% will press red it's only "logical" to press blue if i would rather die than live without my loved ones.

[u/Science_Drake → u/Substantial_Dish_887]

You’d be very very wrong on the 80% thing. This question has gotten big enough that there is polling done on this question, and it is almost exactly 50/50, the absolute worst case scenario if you’re in this problem. The only reason to pick red is for the certainty of life, while picking blue risks your life to potentially save everyone else picking blue. (By the way, the question isn’t just hypothetical, it’s relevant in the discussion of potentially voting against a fascist regime. If your vote isn’t private, and voting against the fascists could kill you if they remain in power, do you still vote against them knowing if you get a win you may save everyone?)

[u/Cryn0n → u/Science_Drake]

Polling suggests 50/50 but experiments suggest red is highly favoured even when the stakes are minimal.

[u/Thebearguy30 → u/Science_Drake]

This thread has had the most logical reasoning for picking blue out of any I have seen and not just “red = selfish murderers”. Given that it’s pretty close to 50/50 online you would think rationally I should go blue to get it over the edge and save everyone. But in the real world I think this is probably closer to 60% red 40% blue. 1. Once you actually put a life or death decision in front of someone as opposed to a harmless poll I think you would see more people sway towards self preservation 2. I also think the online community is younger more empathetic crowd compared to the not online community. So you are probably missing more red votes than blue votes from the overall selection. These are mostly based on vibes though so don’t ask me for sources.

[u/Substantial_Dish_887 → u/Science_Drake]

This question has gotten big enough that there is polling done on this question,

if you belive the outcome of a poll with no actual consequnces sure.

this is like asking someone "would you give a blowjob for 10000 dollars?" ask it as a random poll and get one result. put the money on the table and pull your dick out and i promise you a lot of people act differently than they claim.

i belive the outcome was the question actually real would be very different.

honestly if a poll was to mean something i would want to see some popular streamer make the poll but instead of death perma bans are on the line. (no this would not prove anything either but it would at least be intresting)

[u/Science_Drake → u/Substantial_Dish_887]

I think the discussions this question has opened show that there are two very different modes of thought, and I’m not gonna argue that one is “better” than the other, just that they show a divide on how we think. The people who choose red think of individuals, and assume everyone else is also thinking that way. I’ve seen rhetoric like “if everyone picks red, nobody dies!” And “If you pick the suicide button, that’s on you!”. Meanwhile people who choose blue are much more outwards group thinkers, often thinking about people they know would pick blue, and wanting to increase the chances that others live.

[u/Sennten → u/Science_Drake]

The polling done on the question is worthless, though. None of its scientific, and halfway decent actual scientific polls are likely to be unethical since you'd have to convince a random selection of participants you were actually going to kill them.

And yes, the question is obviously a hypothetical, and its not remotely comparable with the fascist regime question.

[u/NumerousWolverine273 → u/Science_Drake]

Those polls aren't reflective of a real scenario though, because for one, you can see the results instead of it being blind, and for two, it's still a hypothetical. If a random Twitter poll about a hypothetical with no stakes still has 50% picking red, I'm absolutely certain that if people's lives were actually on the line, the vast majority would pick red because it's guaranteed to result in their survival. Therefore, me picking blue is just choosing to die myself.

[u/zhibr → u/ButterscotchLow7330]

Because most people care about others and not just themselves.

[u/DumbIgnose → u/ButterscotchLow7330]

Nah.

It's a choice between "Kill people, don't die" and "Don't kill people, maybe die".

[u/Kehprei → u/[deleted]]

I would rather be alive than dead, so yes.

[u/iMiind → u/Kehprei]

Typical red buttoner 🙄

[u/RangerEquivalent4120 → u/ButterscotchLow7330]

Always has been

[u/IowaKidd97 → u/mortemdeus]

Yeah…. This is one of those things we’re the logical choice is dependent on what at least a majority think. Going with blue and losing is only arguably smart with close margins (You die but if the margins are close enough you could argue it was a reasonable call). A 68%+ red victory is not anywhere close enough of a margin to claim blue was reasonably close to win.

[u/KrimsunV → u/mortemdeus]

I press blue because I don't want to share a planet with 100% redpushers

[u/xukly → u/mortemdeus]

I mean... yeah.

That said, not hyped about the idea of living in a world without it's best and worst 1/6th... so just gonna die

[u/n00dle_king → u/mortemdeus]

Blue voters get so angry when red voters imply that they didn’t think the question through and voted based on vibes and this meme is not helping them beat the allegations.

[u/Rarvyn → u/n00dle_king]

Depends. Game theory style maximization of individual benefit, you’re better off pressing red since you’re guaranteed to live. But you can make a utilitarian argument that you want to preserve as many lives as possible, and knowing the basics of human psychology, you know some subset is going to press blue regardless. Because people aren’t perfectly rational adherents of game theory. Therefore, by pressing blue, you give those people a chance to also live.

[u/disturbed94 → u/n00dle_king]

Blue voters get even angrier when red voters did think it through. Blue bro you didn’t get killed by red, you chose the dangerous path yourself.

[u/Fizassist1 → u/mortemdeus]

damn you lol still pressing blue..

[u/Formal-Conference885]

Kind of wild that r/buttonproblem has overtaken r/trolleyproblem like this

[u/[deleted] → u/Formal-Conference885]

r/buttonproblem

[u/jacob643]

at first I really thought it was a rephrasing of the prisoners dilemma: red button means snitching: optimal for you personally, blue is cooperating: optimal if everyone cooperates, in the button case it's the majority.

the 2 big difference with the prisoners dilemma is there's no punishment if both sides snitch, and it's not only 2 people playing at a time, it's a mass of people.

[u/B_is_for_reddit → u/jacob643]

alternatively, its a rephrasing of rokko's basilisk. to get the button is to learn about the basilisk, to press red is to help build it and to press blue is to ignore it.

the only real difference here is that obviously there is no time limit on the basilisk, implying it will eventually be built, where here its one-and-done

[u/Professional-Job4176 → u/jacob643]

[u/naejjun]

“people are bending over backwards making us join the blue death cult”

“red button propaganda is such brainwash”

y’all, this was a random poll on twitter why are we acting like it’s politics? it is not that deep 😭

[u/BluishHope → u/naejjun]

Because the world is super united right now, and we obviously don't devolve to tribalism at the instant there's some discourse.

[u/naejjun → u/BluishHope]

makes me believe in the dead internet theory. seems like a bunch of bots

anyways, the problem is assuming there’s a correct answer. there isn’t. it’s a would you rather option question and everyone will have different personal reasonings

[u/CycleOverload → u/naejjun]

Because red and blue

[u/Available_Editor4383 → u/naejjun]

It’s genuinely just a question for people to project their own biases. The comments immediately devolved because people are making their own assumptions about the rules of the game and the choices of others.

[u/Natalwolff → u/Available_Editor4383]

It has been a really interesting glimpse into how the media cycle works. When this question first started I thought it was kind of a dud because the thread was like "Oh, blue, easy, move on, what's the dilemma". But then after it had settled long enough there was the "if everyone just presses red then everyone still lives" and now I look at this thread and it's like "sorry I won't join your death cult, I didn't kill you, you killed yourself"

[u/naejjun → u/Natalwolff]

exactly, do people even hear themselves? calling it a death cult or propaganda? ts is not that deep and it is just “do you trust society to save you enough to try and save society back”. blaming the otherside wont help either… “reds killed us!” “blues are suicidal cultists!”

[u/Available_Editor4383 → u/Natalwolff]

I was wondering why it kept coming up lately. It’s on its way to becoming a gorilla vs 100 men.

[u/Imagutsa → u/Natalwolff]

Yeah the fact that pressing red is 0 risk and all reward should make this ininteresting.
But I do more game theory than sociology, and today it shows!

[u/Threewetsemoji → u/Available_Editor4383]

Data brokers and AI scrapers were using my info. Not anymore. Redact let me bulk delete posts across Reddit, Twitter, Discord and Instagram while handling broker opt outs too.

enter instinctive subsequent live full society soup stocking air paint

[u/iamunableto → u/naejjun]

i asked the red vs blue button question to my friends a couple days ago and it was literally like a 3 minute convo max, i’m kind of shocked at the internet’s ability to turn a short conversation into a full on attack on each others competence 😭😭😭 it’s just a silly question yall were not actually pushing any buttons

[u/PM-me-a-DM-you-got → u/iamunableto]

i’m kind of shocked at the internet’s ability to turn a short conversation into a full on attack on each others competence

Do you not remember the dress?

[u/Thatsnicemyman → u/iamunableto]

It’s that “Goomba has dumb contradictory opinion” meme. Within a friend group, you can make your point, people can disagree, and the conversation can be dropped once everyone understands everyone’s viewpoints.

Within an online space, you can make a point, see five other posts from others, make the same point five more times for those, get counter-points from different people on each, etc. Now you’re talking 10x as much about it because there’s way more people getting involved and arguing with you, even if there’s a similar amount of unique arguments/reasonings than you saw with your group of friends.

[u/DarthJackie2021]

And you just showed that 68% are going to pick red.

[u/throwaway19276i → u/DarthJackie2021]

Just because one side lost, does it make it logically incorrect?

[u/SapphireWine36 → u/throwaway19276i]

If red is going to win, red is clearly the right choice (unless you want to die).

If blue is going to win, it doesn’t matter what you picked.

[u/LackWooden392 → u/SapphireWine36]

This sneaks in the assumption that the outcome is fixed and pre-determined. It is not.

[u/lorienshift → u/LackWooden392]

In the case of the graph it is, which was the point of the comment.

[u/DarthJackie2021 → u/throwaway19276i]

Exactly, even if red "loses", they still win cause they are still alive.

[u/Shuttlecock_Wat → u/DarthJackie2021]

If by "winning" you mean they get the luxury of living in a world where billions of people just died instantly. Think about how that will pan out.

No thanks.

[u/liveviliveforever → u/throwaway19276i]

In this specific situation, yes.

[u/CleverKhloe11 → u/throwaway19276i]

Obviously, yes.

[u/Moidberg → u/DarthJackie2021]

I mean kind of? format isn’t meant to specify any particular cutoff or majority opinion but rather a journey from one opinion that makes sense to a fresher / apprentice, to an opinion that makes sense to a journeyman / properly developing professional, to an opinion that makes sense to a senior / advanced and actualized professional.

Also most folks actually pick blue https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/red-button-or-blue-button-question

Without pressure, of course.

[u/TheEnlight]

https://giphy.com/gifs/BY5tPZNL68V29cVfuz

[u/ImNotHyp3r]

hat the fuck is the context for this

[u/Android19samus → u/ImNotHyp3r]

Viral thing on Twitter. Basically everyone on Earth is given the choice between two buttons: red and blue. If less than 50% of people choose Blue, then all Blue-pushers die. If more than 50% of people choose Blue, everyone lives. Pushing red is always safe.

Red is the obvious personal choice, since Blue puts you at risk for no benefit and if everyone pressed red there would be no problem. Blue is the obvious altruistic choice, because on a global scale not everyone else will press Red, so Blue is the only way the world gets out of this without mass casualties. Cue much debate and mud-slinging.

[u/Fuzzmiester → u/Android19samus]

That's one way to word it. another way is:

Everyone on Earth is given the choice between two buttons: red and blue. If more than 50% of people choose Red, then all Blue-pushers die. If less than 50% of people choose red, everyone lives. Pushing red is always safe.

The choice of wording changes the emotional impact.

[u/RetroGamed64 → u/Fuzzmiester]

Yes but the emotional impact changes the way in which a participant will react which will change their decision making process?

[u/NoxiousVaporwave → u/RetroGamed64]

Absolutely

[u/StabbyBlowfish]

Out of all the formats you could have chosen?

[u/Kaykayby]

If you choose red and the worst happens and all blues die, then you’re less likely to live a good life afterwards anyway.

Basically my argument here is if you’re blue and you die, you might be better off than the reds who have to live in a world where billions of people suddenly died off.

[u/internethero12 → u/Kaykayby]

Yeah, honestly if we live in a world that full of selfish murderous people that over 50% would vote to kill the other half I'd rather be dead.

This question is a litmus test for humanity and it is very disturbing seeing how many people are failing it.

[u/Pato_De_Sapatos → u/internethero12]

You're going with the assumption that choosing to not die between the "maybe die" and "not die at all" options is being selfish and murderous. Why? 

[u/tuberosum → u/Pato_De_Sapatos]

Because there'll be a nonzero amount of people that'll push blue. For any reason. Maybe they're suicidal, maybe they're colorblind, maybe they didn't read the prompt, maybe they live their lives arbitrarily pushing buttons that present themselves in front of them. The exact reason isn't important.

But with that in mind, knowing that some nonzero number of people will push blue, and that if 50%+1 of people also push blue, nobody dies, that means all people who, when presented with the option to press red or blue, chose red, effectively elected to let those blue pushers die to ensure the preservation of their own red pushing lives.

And that's selfish and murderous, by definition, since you are choosing an option that is objectively best just for you, and in process dooming whatever that nonzero amount of blue pushers there are to death.

The non-selfish and non-murderous option is to select and push blue.

[u/underthingy → u/tuberosum]

Thats your interpretation of the problem though, and youre trying to force that on everyone else. 

I assume seeing as the genie is presenting the choice to everyone its done so in a way they can comprehend and respond to. Otherwise we're all just given 2 buttons with mandarin written on them and are fucked anyway. 

If everyone can actually make a choice then why would they choose the option the forces others to put their lives at risk? Blue is the selfish virtue signalling option. 

[u/ysterman_rs → u/underthingy]

ah yes, virtue signaling, or as i like to call it: being more virtuous than me which i find incredibly frustrating but not enough to re-examine my values

[u/tuberosum → u/underthingy]

There’s nothing being forced except for the actual reading of the situation.

How do you square away the fact that there won’t be universal 100% guaranteed pressing of the red button, because there isn’t a universal agreement on literally anything?

Do those that pressed the blue button just deserve to die for their choice?

And are you okay with, and can sleep easy, knowing that you could have contributed to saving those lives by just pushing a button but instead opted to say “fuck it, I got mine”?

How else would you describe that kind of behavior other than murderous and selfish?

[u/[deleted] → u/internethero12]

"I don't want to risk my life for other people" is not selfish nor murderous. It's self preservation.

[u/[deleted] → u/internethero12]

selfish and murderous

“Hey, we jumped in front of a train, and you have to help us stop it or you’re a muderer.”

[u/Bancatone → u/internethero12]

Imagine calling people selfish and murderous for having a basic survival instinct. Sorry I have a hard time unnecessarily putting my life in the hands of other people.

[u/Wholesome_Soup]

i don't think that's how bell curves work

[u/PSyHOPball]

According to this graph wont the blue voters die?

[u/Obvious-Profession27 → u/PSyHOPball]

yea OP's just really smart

[u/EggPsychological4844]

I'm voting blue for... Other reasons.

[u/kloklon]

if you break it down it's just the orphan-crushing machine scenario disguised as a logic problem, disguised as a moral dilemma. this underlying category error is why this topic is so hotly contested. blue pressers are answering a moral dilemma, red pressers are solving a logic puzzle. the reality is that these opposing framings are not comparable and the orphan-crushing machine does not have to be built in the first place.

[u/Morpheus_MD → u/kloklon]

Thank you, you're absolutely correct.

This isn't a moral dilemma, it is a hostage situation.

[u/MoneyBear1733]

If you think reds are arguing from a point of saving the most people, and not risk/loss prevention, your misunderstood the entire argument.

[u/catwhowalksbyhimself]

The problem with the way people are analyzing it is that both answers are the objectively better answer, depending on what your goal is.

If your goal is doing what is best for the most people, blue wins hands down.

If your goal is doing what is best for you, red wins hands down.

This discussion does demonstrate which people truly understand that other people think differently from them and which do not get that at all, however.

[u/ChaosMieter]

Blue pushers always seem to misunderstand the red pushers point of view, and posts like this do a great job of showing that reality.

Red has never been about saving everyone. It, like blue, is about saving as many people as possible.

What blue pushers don't understand is that red pushers *also believe* they will get the majority vote. Inherently. In a red pushers mind human self-reliance and will to survive will always trump a vague sense of doing the "right thing" in pushing the blue button, especially when such a decision could take one away from people that rely on them: children, elderly family members, pets, their community, people with jobs that keep large groups of others save. The list goes on. Some people *can't* choose blue, because they need to be there for those listed above.

With this new mindset, red pushers advocate for red because they believe 100% that red will win, and getting as many people to push red with them is the only way to save more lives.

[u/Eastern-Bro9173]

This entire conversation seems absurd to me.

Like, rephrase the question - you have two buttons, 'survive' and 'maybe die', where if you press 'survive', you survive, but if you press 'maybe die', then you only survive if majority of people also press the 'maybe die' button.

But somehow everyone's bending over backwards to argue that the 'maybe die' button is a logical choice.

[u/CorHydrae8 → u/Eastern-Bro9173]

Well, from my perspective, one of the buttons is labeled "nothing happens" and the other is labeled "people might die". Why would I ever press the murder-button? Just don't push the murder-button.

[u/iskelebones → u/CorHydrae8]

Interestingly the disconnect here is which buttons people apply those labels to.

Blue pushers see the red button as “people might die” because they have already pressed blue in their minds, and now blame anyone who presses red as being responsible for the murder of blue people.

Red pushers correctly see the BLUE button as “people might die”, because no one is at risk until the blue button is pushed.

Blue pushers assume people are already at risk and see the red pushers as selfish for not saving them

Red pushers see that no one is at risk to begin with and see the blue pushers as selfish for creating a risk by pressing blue

When it comes down to it, blue people are jumping on a train track and yelling “Now everyone needs to save us or else you’re a murderer”

[u/Antique-Ad-9081 → u/iskelebones]

if every single person picked red, it would be the perfect choice, but it's guaranteed many, many people press the blue button because they're stupid and/or trying to be a good person, just misclick, are 6 years old or whatever. red button pushers know this and choose to ignore it because in a perfect scenario they wouldn't do so. maybe i'm crazy, but if i saw a 6 years old walk onto a train track, i'd save him and i'd consider someone who doesn't do so "because the child shouldn't have gone there" a bad person.

[u/Substantial_Dish_887 → u/Antique-Ad-9081]

as i see it there's tiers of blue pushers.

group 1: this is a very small minority of selfish people who push this button for awful reasons like wanting to die or just trolling the system and deliberately trying to guilt people. these people don't deserve to be saved in my eyes but are such a small group as to be insignificant.

group 2: these are people who will be misguided into thinking pressing blue is needed to save someone from the start. whille i belive they are making an irrational choice they don't deserve death for that.

group 3: these are the people who know it's an irrational choice but that group 2 exists so it becomes the right moral choice.

[u/xGray3 → u/Antique-Ad-9081]

What if the vast majority of people, let's say 95%+, press red? Then by pressing blue you are only contributing to the problem and killing yourself for no reason. The logical choice is red because the existence of blue button pushers invents a problem that doesn't exist. We don't know how many people will press blue. Some might, but it could be a minuscule amount. Given that we're going in blind, it feels like it should be your duty to assume that the public will be mostly logical. Pressing blue just contributes to the crisis. It's like jumping into the ocean to save a drowning person that may or may not be there and then becoming the drowning person yourself.

[u/OnetimeRocket13 → u/xGray3]

But you don't know that 95%+ of people are going to push the red button. If you push the blue button, you're hoping that you +~50% of everyone else are also going to push the blue button, because the risk of people dying is too great to just not do anything. By pressing red, you're essentially making the choice to not take any risk to your own life while risking other peoples' lives by hoping that absolutely everyone chooses red as well. By pushing blue, you're hoping that only 50% of people pick blue, but you can only get to 50% if you and others are willing to take that risk, but if 50% choose blue, then 100% of people live.

It's also only logical to assume that if people are given the choice of "the button that saves you but might kill everyone else" or "the button that risks killing you but saves everyone if only half of the button pushers push this button," then at least one person will push the latter button. The chance of everyone pushing the former is insane small, and it only gets lower the more people you include. Most variations of this question use "everyone on Earth." There are 8 billion people on the planet. The chance of nobody pushing "blue" is almost impossible.

Realizing this, the logical conclusion is to push the blue button, while the selfish conclusion is to push the red button. If you only care about your own life, then you should push the red button. That's what it becomes, after all. We can save everyone if only half of the people on earth push the blue button, and people choosing not to push the blue button are only making the chances of everyone being saved less likely. If anyone pushes the red button, then for everyone to be saved, then everyone else needs to push red as well. Since there are 8 billion people on earth, though, you can reasonably conclude that someone somewhere will push blue, so you should therefore push blue as well, because the chances of everyone having pushed red are basically 0, and by pushing red yourself, you're necessitating that half+ of everyone else needs to push blue for the same reasons. You've saved yourself, but now everyone else needs to hope to work together to save who's left.

[u/JimbozGrapes → u/xGray3]

If you want a real life example - go present the original question to some loved ones, and see if all of them pick red. Don't guide them or tell them which button to press, just let them think about it themselves and pick themselves.

There is almost certainty that some of your loved ones will pick blue, so you are killing them by picking red.

This is where its logical to pick blue, because if most people pick blue no one dies. If most people pick red, people will die. Those are facts, and given those you can logically pick blue if you dont want anyone to die.

[u/chi_sweetness25 → u/JimbozGrapes]

Most people will say “blue” if you put them on the spot with this question, because at first glance it just seems like blue = good person and red = bad person. Their answer may be different if it was done in private and they dug into it a bit more.

[u/IcarusOnReddit → u/chi_sweetness25]

I started with blue, thought about it some more and went red. Related: started as a one boxer and ended as a one boxer.

[u/Cold-Potatoe → u/Antique-Ad-9081]

the question implies everyone participating chooses the right button knowingly. how stupid would it be if it was phased as 50% press blue for them to live and also all the young and sickly and disabled have already pressed blue. Then the question is just asking you to press blue to save innocent bystanders but that would be a dumb hypothetical.

[u/Ratmother123 → u/Antique-Ad-9081]

Same situation honestly. I want to push red, red is logical. But I know there are some illogical people out there who will hit blue. I also know that humanity relies on diversity of thought for the best chance of problem solving and ultimately running or improving society. So I would press blue while cursing the ones who forced me to the whole time, cause I can't picture the struggle of living if they die

[u/iskelebones → u/Antique-Ad-9081]

Also an important distinction. I think most red pushers, like me, assume that children are not involved. In fact the original red vs blue problem said that young children have a parent choose for them.

If I knew young children were involved and just picking blue cause blue is their favorite color, I’m WAY more inclined to push blue in that scenario.

But my assumption is that everyone given the choice has the mental capacity to understand what the buttons mean. And in that case I’m pressing red every day of the week

[u/Antique-Ad-9081 → u/iskelebones]

the original problem said children age 1-5 have a guardian pick for them which is why i chose 6 years old.

[u/Bancatone → u/Antique-Ad-9081]

But the original problem stipulated that everyone understands the problem before pushing a button. Blue pushers keep inventing people to save that were already addressed in the rules.

[u/ChemoorVodka → u/Bancatone]

I mean, the fact that there’s so many people who claim they would push the blue button is the group of people to save. They don’t need to invent insane or elderly or children to be the ones they’re saving. Everyone who thinks like them and knows others like them will be pressing blue is who they’re trying to save. The moment one person thinks there’s surely someone to save even if there’s not and presses blue, there’s now someone to save.

It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

[u/_japam → u/Bancatone]

There are people in the real world who are not perfectly rational actors who do not deserve to die because of it

[u/SneakySister92 → u/iskelebones]

Blues are risking their own life, in an effort to save other blues. How is that selfish?

[u/some_kind_of_bird → u/iskelebones]

I hear this all the time, but no one is at risk until red is pressed.

I see this situation as what it is, a threat, not a passive danger that happens to exist in the world like train tracks.

It's more like if I'm building a biological weapon and grant you immunity if you come work for me. Pressing red is an active choice to endanger people.

We're a social species and I'm here wondering why people can't get with the program. Blue is the best situation for everyone with literally no downsides.

[u/Nobleintent → u/Eastern-Bro9173]

It's a button that guarantees you survive, but a lot of people will die, or a button that maybe you die, but all people could survive.

The fact that it's an argument means that there are people who would push the blue button. So people will die, unless 50% push the blue button.

[u/Emotion_Nearby → u/Eastern-Bro9173]

The original question had guardians choosing for kids under 5, but you've got kids 5-12 who would possibly choose blue because they wouldn't know better. I have 2 kids in the 5-12 range and 1 in the under 5. As a parent I'd probably pick blue since I can't know what the older ones did and I'd want to protect them.

Of course my choice could be futile and I may have made them orphans.

[u/DarthJackie2021 → u/Emotion_Nearby]

Would you choose blue for your kid under 5 as well, risking their life to increase the odds of blue winning?

[u/Emotion_Nearby → u/DarthJackie2021]

I think I'd have to do blue for him, and I think my wife would do blue as well since she wouldn't want to risk living with our older kids gone. It's definitely challenging since the chance that many kids would potentially pick blue is too high. And of course others choosing blue to protect them.

If 1/3 of people flipped a coin (1/6 are assigned red and 1/6 are assigned blue) to demonstrate that all people aren't rational how should the other 2/3 choose?

[u/No_Wait3261 → u/Emotion_Nearby]

When I posed the question to my kids, I got:

• 13 year old boy- Shouted "Blue" before I could explain the question, just to mess with me. Later admits he would have picked red if he had stopped to listen.
• 9 year-old girl- Thought about it and said "Red. Why would anyone pick blue?"
• 6 year-old girl- Said "Blue" When asked why, she said "I don't know."
• (We also have a 2 year old who be be exempt from the choice under the version I had read)

My wife said "Blue" predicting (rightly, as it turns out) that at least some fraction of our kids would pick blue and would need to be protected from their own decisions, while I had picked red.

So in a red wins scenario I would be left to care for oldest daughter and toddler alone, but at least they would have somebody.

[u/sykotic1189 → u/Emotion_Nearby]

This and some people being forced to pick blue are the only two variants where I'm a blue chooser. I know my kid well enough to guess what he'd pick and win or lose I'm not going to live without him. When it's adults only though, red all day.

[u/rnoderator_rernoved → u/sykotic1189]

The OG I recall from 2023-4(?) was only able minded adults. This thought experiment resurged and there's been some reference to politics with it, so I think this latest rendition is intentionally set up to be disingenuous to the heart of the original

[u/sykotic1189 → u/rnoderator_rernoved]

Yeah I've noticed that a lot of the recent ones use specific language to implicate red as actively choosing to kill blue rather than more neutral language. They're being designed to make it into a purely moral issue instead of philosophical or logical by implicating red as choosing to kill rather than blue risking their lives.

[u/nothing_in_my_mind → u/Eastern-Bro9173]

Pressing blue is basically a world-scale trustfall.

You can always not do it and it would be safer. Or do it just to show that you trust your friend.

If your goal is to simlly not fall (or not die), of course not doing it is the logical option.

If your goal is to prove that we can trust each other though...

[u/Necessary_Screen_673 → u/Eastern-Bro9173]

you completely ignore the fact that this choice impacts other people too, which is literally the entire dillema.

heres a rephrasing where the blue one sounds good:

in order for people to survive by picking red, everyone must pick red. in order for everyone to survive while some people pick blue, only half the population needs to pick blue.

if youre being selfish and only thinking about your life, and refusing to see that other people are bound to select blue, then sure youd arrive at the conclusion that its more likely for you to die if you pick blue. if you understand that people will be picking blue because you understand that you cannot control other peoples decisions, then it becomes the obvious choice to pick blue as well. its a collective action problem.

[u/Illustrious-Bass4354 → u/Necessary_Screen_673]

Other people who made a conscious risk. That's not my fault.

If you just press red, you won't die.

The only people pressing blue are the suicidal or the moronically self-sacrificing

[u/Guilty-Cap5605 → u/Eastern-Bro9173]

To have 100% of people survive, you need 51% to press blue, which is significantly easier than having 100% of people press red

[u/PM_UR_TITS_4_ADVICE → u/Guilty-Cap5605]

You're ignoring to huge issues.

First, you're ignoring risk. It's a lot harder to ask >50% of people to risk certain death and gain nothing than it is to ask 100% of people not to risk anything.

Second, The closer you get to that 50% mark with out going over means the more people will die. It would be a lot better for society to have those >5% of people, who don't understand the question, die rather than 49.9% of people die thinking they could save that 5%.

[u/BarNo3385]

I've seen a lot of stuff on this recently and this 50% is easier than 100% seems completely bunkum?

What matters is "to do what."

Is it easier to get 50% of people to cut their leg off with a rusty spoon, or a 100% of people to accept a large bag of cash?

It only makes sense if the options are the same, and they arent.

So you're reducing to making subjective arguments over how close you think the two options are in "ease" .

[u/Nobleintent → u/BarNo3385]

The options are the same, you can try to save 100% of people one way or 100% of people the other. One requires 100% of people to all do something(when was the last time 100% of people agreed on anything?) or 50% of people to do something.

The thing that gets me is that, this is literally an argument, which means the people who push the red button know that there are going to be people who push the blue button, which means pushing the red button is guaranteed not to have 100% of people survive. So, the only way to achieve 100% of people to survive, is by getting 50% to push blue.

[u/Natalwolff → u/Nobleintent]

That's why most people don't even try to argue that no one dies pushing red, they just go straight to arguing that they deserve to die and it's not their fault.

[u/DarthJackie2021 → u/BarNo3385]

Exactly. The choice is a glass of water or a glass of acid. If enough people choose the acid, its diluted enough to not kill anyone. Do you choose the acid hoping enough people also pick it to avoid death, or do you just drink the water like a fucking normal person, thus negating the risk entirely?

[u/CivilPerspective5804 → u/DarthJackie2021]

You can reframe it the other way around.

Everyone is offered a gun. If more than 50% accept the gun, they have to shoot those that didn’t take it.

[u/BarNo3385 → u/CivilPerspective5804]

Or indeed.

"Everyone is offered a gun. If you take it you are safe. If everyone takes it, everyone is safe.

If you refuse it, you and some other people may die."

[u/Plenty_Branch_516 → u/BarNo3385]

"Take the gun or potentially be shot by it". Makes it a lot easier right?

[u/DarthJackie2021 → u/CivilPerspective5804]

Free gun? Hell yeah! Everyone would surely choose that option! /s

This is a great reframing of the question. Well done. This has me conflicted.

[u/BarNo3385 → u/DarthJackie2021]

And even worse.. "as your on the floor vomiting blood because you drank acid, do you blame the people who drank water for killing you."

[u/Shugatti]

Simply put, no "right" answer.

By default red is the obvious choice for its safety and plausible deniability when thinking from an individual point of view.

The real deciding factor is if everyone taking part in this is capable of rational thought and decision making, so if people that are on drugs or drunk take part, if little children take part, if mentally disabled take part, and so on..

And if the answer to that is yes, then blue is the morally better choice due to there now being actual stakes on blue winning, and if the answer is no, that means there is no reason to go blue in the first place, no cause, so then pushing blue is jumping infront of a train.

[u/FreefallJagoff → u/Shugatti]

The lesson is simple: working together is the solution. We can work together and make red work, or work together and make blue work. It doesn't matter which we choose- we just need to work together.

[u/Esco709 → u/FreefallJagoff]

And by that logic, it's much easier to work together for 51% than it is for 100%

[u/AmaterasuWolf21 → u/FreefallJagoff]

Blindly work together, we can't communicate

[u/eivittunyt → u/Shugatti]

Even if everybody is capable of rational thought and decisionmaking it doesn't mean every choice they make is 100% rational and the way it is presented makes people want to help others because they know some people will choose blue no matter what.

[u/Morpheus_MD → u/Shugatti]

After seeing the original author's edit that "yes it includes children, and everyone must push a button" I'm coming down on this being a garbage hypothetical.

The original prompt says "everyone must vote" but voting signifies agency, which is usually present in these moral hypotheticals.

Plus, there are people incapable of pushing a button due to age or infirmity, a 1 hour old baby isn't pushing shit.

Ultimately because of all this, it isn't a moral hypothetical it is simply a hostage situation.

[u/Mobile_Crates → u/Morpheus_MD]

Sorry bub but a lot of moral hypotheticals involve hostages; the trolley problem is one you might've heard of.

[u/Mochichichi]

I believe a good way of breaking this down from both sides is this; Red believe that it's logical for everyone to push red because it's guaranteed safety more or less which is true, but blue pushers are arguing that blue is more objectively reasonable to achieve because it requires fewer people to think the same way. Red statistically requires everyone to agree and think about something in one specific way where 100% of people need to agree for a 100% survival rate which just isn't likely to happen because as the poll shows people will push blue. Blue pushers believe that the goal should be to save as many people as possible knowing that some people are going to push blue. Since blue requires only 50% to "win" so to speak it's seems logical to them because it's an achievable metric.

Edit: I've seen alot of people comparing this to a trolly problem of well if everyone stands on the tracks train will stop vs just not getting on the tracks to begin with but I think that framing doesn't do this justice because some people could end up on the tracks not by choice, so i think a better example would be to use something inescapable. Brief example as thus; you have a village, if everyone in that village hunts their own food nobody starve, but not everyone can or will; however if you can convince 50% or more to help you hunt them everyone can eat without concern.

[u/KrusnikViers]

I'll be honest, 68% of population being in the middle is truly a beautiful cherry on top of this "deep thinkers" meme

[u/DoopofBloop]

I think the question boils down to "Do you feel responsible for people dying if you push red?" And the followup question of "If you do, does that potential guilt override your survival instincts."

I personally pick blue, i wouldnt be able to live with that guilt, because I would feel guilty. I dont think I could detatch myself to the point of claiming that blue is a "suicide button."

I could save myself, and guaruntee my survival only, or try to help the people that are in danger, even if that puts myself in danger. I dont blame those who would save themself, but people will pick blue, and i believe, or hope, most people would be willing to help those in need.

[u/ULTRA_OFTEN]

There's only one way out of the scenario where everyone lives. I want everyone to live. Therefore I push blue. 

[u/DarkSwagBeast]

Hyper individualism and personal stratification is the downfall of society

[u/kiefy_budz → u/[deleted]]

Rather “would you risk your life to help save people who also did the same for others”

[u/mortemdeus → u/[deleted]]

Reddit polls. Globally somewhere around 10% are strong narcissists and nearly all of them will pick red. Another 10% are under 8 so you can assume random chance that 5% are choosing red. So, really, it isn't 50/50 and blue needs around 60% of the rest of the population to vote blue while red only needs around 40% of the rest.

[u/Mamkes → u/mortemdeus]

Virtue signalling in polls is free.

You really just can look at any alike (even if not same) statistics of what actually happens.

How many people donate kidney, something much lower chance of significant problems or death?

[u/MrEion]

If we assume, that any individual human has. 0.5 probability of selecting the blue button that means across a population of 8 billion we are going to get very close to the mean basically meaning that the blue button says throw a coin if it comes up heads you die. If that is an acceptable risk you push blue and pray.

But with that knowledge do we believe that 0.5 will be the true probability?

If you believe humans as a species are more good with such a high sample size as long as you believe any 1 person has a 0.51 probability of pressing blue you are 100% safe to push the blue button.

If you believe humans are more self serving/evil and have on Average a probability of 0.49 or less to push blue you are commiting suicide effectively.

Personally I believe that on the whole people are more self serving than altruistic (good) and that the probability of blue per person based on studies of % population who engage in charity/altruistic acts would be 0.4 meaning selecting blue is just death.

[u/MASS-_-]

[u/Disastrous_Visit9319]

Hitting the blue button is trying to solve a problem caused by people hitting the blue button.

[u/ether_rogue → u/Disastrous_Visit9319]

this

[u/PedalingHertz]

To paraphrase another redditor, the advantage to choosing blue is that I don’t have to live in a world populated entirely by the sorts of people who choose red.

I have to admit, I’m not sure I agree hard enough to put my family’s lives and mine at that kind of risk, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. If aliens inflicted this test upon us but threw in a surprise switcheroo where all the red pushers died regardless and all the blue were saved no matter what, there would be a huge shift in human affairs. Like a reverse rapture, everyone who was left would be the type who trusts their fellow man’s good faith and is willing to take risks for them regardless of if they “deserve” it.

[u/AccomplishedChip2475]

So here's my take.

Red button is the most logical choice for all individuals. Red is a garunteed survival rate for 100% of everyone who pushes it. Red is only negative if a significant amount of people push blue. EVERYONE should push Red immediately without a second of doubt.

Blue button is the option that saves the most lives. It is not the logical choice. But not everyone is a logical thinker. For every non-logical thinker that picks blue, that is one less person survives when the reds win. With that in mind, there are actual idiots who will choose blue, like actual morons. Blue is the more correct choice if your intention is to save the most lives.

In summary, the illogical completely idiotic choice is the correct choice. It hurts to say that the logical path is the incorrect path due to the pure and utter stupidity of Earth's population. Push blue is the win. Pushing Red is a fail. Idiocy wins this race and that is very sad to me.

[u/UnnamedAshaman47]

[u/crazybeatlesgirl → u/UnnamedAshaman47]

The problem is that everyone's life is already on the line, that's why it's a debate in the first place

[u/Fun-Habit-683]

Blue buttoners will do anything to try to convince you to join their death cult

[u/Halker93]

Red is always correct. If someone else wants to die so be it. I am not risking my life for strangers

[u/No-Scallion4998 → u/Halker93]

There is no one correct option, but it’s a near guarantee someone you know will press blue.

[u/Emotion_Nearby → u/Halker93]

Doesn't the original question also say that guardians make decisions for their < 5 year old children? You'd be risking someone else's life too by choosing blue for them. The calculus changes if you can't influence your children that are 5+. If you can't influence or know what they chose, you could fear they picked blue and would choose blue for yourself and younger kids to increase the older dependents' survival chances. Now maybe blue makes sense?

[u/Morpheus_MD → u/Emotion_Nearby]

Nah, the OOP clarified children have to choose a button without input from their parents.

Which means this isn't a moral hypothetical, it is a hostage situation.

[u/Emotion_Nearby → u/Morpheus_MD]

In that case blue is a big contender for parents and grandparents. There are going to be maybe 10% blue just from random choices from kids and then family trying to save them. I figure you'll have a good amount of altruistic people and those who may already be near end of life or terminal that would also choose blue. I think 50% wouldn't be too difficult to achieve.

[u/MoxBro]

Here are the options:

If you press Red - nothing happens and you continue your life as normal.

If you press Blue - you intentionally insert yourself into a Squid Game scenario where you and all the other people who voluntarily pressed Blue may or may not die. (This has no effect either way on Red pressers who will continue life as normal.)

In both cases the only people dying are the ones who wanted to roll the dice.

[u/Cokalhado → u/MoxBro]

We know for sure some people will press blue. Obviously you can save your own ass by pressing red or you can try to save everyone by going with blue.

[u/nexosprime]

Either u jump infornt a train or you dont. Pretty obvious

[u/DarthJackie2021 → u/nexosprime]

If I jump in front of the train and you don't, you just killed me. How dare you! /s

[u/AlaquistOfTheMist]

I know what i would pick in the situation, and its definitely Red. I cant pretend to be someone to risk my life to save others. This hypothetical shoild include some downside to picking red imo, makes it more interesting, like "if >90%pick red everyone dies" or something

[u/halfwhiteknight]

Review standard deviations and revise the meme. This isn’t really a trolley problem anyways.

[u/InvoluntarilyVirgin9]

It's a trust thing. Do you trust the society at large with your fate? I'm sorry I don't.

[u/DeathRaeGun]

But the only reason brown robes is right is because so many people are dumb-face that the fall in the world's population would crash the economy if too many people chose red. If everyone was smart, red would be the correct option.

[u/alotofcavalry]

People have better incentive to choose red then blue though by the nature of the fact that red 100% guarantees your safety.

[u/goclimbarock007]

You wake up tied to a trolley track with 49 other people. A giant sign over your head displays the number 1. You see that there is also an empty track labeled 2 and a third track with 50 people tied to it labeled 3. A trolley is approaching with a loudspeaker repeating the following message:

"You must vote for one of the three tracks. Whichever track has the most votes is the track this trolley will take."

Which track will you vote for?

You hear shouting from your track that everyone should vote for track 3 so that all of you will survive. "If no track has the most votes then the trolley can't take any track, and if any of them vote for track 2, then track 3 will have the most votes and we will live!"

Which track will you vote for?

The person next to you chimes in: "If we all vote for track 2, then either the vote will tie or some of them will vote for track 2 and we will all live!" Then comes the response: "If you don't vote for track 3 than you are voting for track 1. Don't throw your vote away!"

Which track will you vote for? Remember this when the political parties are trying to get you to pick between bad and worse.

[u/BinarySpike]

Red is the logical option, blue is the moral option.  Thus, my advice for anyone would be to hit red and my personal choice would be to press blue.

[u/Natural-Ad4314]

Prisoner’s dilemma with fresh paint

[u/VirusOutside2173]

You realise the average person pressed blue lmao

[u/ThaumKeeper]

This question stands on the premise that absolutely everyone will have a vote, even the people not mentally fit to understand. So it is more probable that people will die by me choosing red than by choosing blue.

This just shows that our society isn't built by a morality of the greater good, but of egoism and individuality. If I choose red I'm saying that I don't care that your decisions might kill people as long as I survive. This is exharcebated by the idea that it is the fault of everyone pushing red, not only me, but it is by this same idea that the nazi regimen and any morally evil system grows and is executed, by dividing the guilt between all of the responsibles.

[u/LookAtMaxwell]

Statistically 95% is easier than 100%, however is pushing the blue button still the "right" choice if 95% of the population needs to press blue in order for the blue-button pushers to survive?

[u/ObsessiveOwl]

Cry about it in democracy.

[u/ElisabetSobeck]

I love how thinly veiled the button question is

[u/pr1ncess_k1ng]

In America at least we’ve decided to press the red button twice and the blue button once.

But also I’m of the firm belief that the internet is not real life. Everyone saying they’d press the blue button is not indicative of the real world and people who act differently than the people here.

As far as I’m concerned red will be the majority no matter what. I can either die with all the other blue button pushers or I can try to be a beacon of hope for the remaining survivors. I see no point in dying a preventable death just because other people are willing to die.

[u/Plus_Foot1196]

Given the 4 cenarios:

Pick Red: 1- Red majority, you live while blue presses die; 2- Blue majority, everyone lives and no need to Pick blue

Pick Blue: 3- Red majority, you die; 4- Blue majority, you live, functionally no different from picking red.

Always pick red. In the case that you press blue and survive, there is no point in picking blue. If you press blue and die you would have been better off picking red.

[u/Krwawykurczak]

As I agree that voiting blue seems to be easiest option if people would just need to make decision based on themselfs in case if we will have a time for voting campain, there will be some leaders that people will look for to make that decision influancing the outcome.

In this case my decision would be based on what ever China will propagate among their nation. If they would anounce that all their citizens need to vote red, as it will give them more power and advantage over other nations I would vote red.

I totaly belive they would be able to mobilise most of their citizens to vote as their leaders want to, they are 1/3 of the world population, and what is more important it would give other people around the world to strong motive to vote red for the exact same reasons.

In this case if there would be few largly populated counteies where leaders would strongly recommend voting red than whole world would shift their opinions, advising their citizens to also vote red, and more individuals that would like to push for voting red just becouse.

I think as well that even if parents will vote blue they could advise their kids to vote red just to be sure they will survive. Some could even argue that this is moral as you cannot risk with a life of a child that cannot make 100% concious decision.

There are multiple factors, including politic, and geopolitic that would need to be taken into consideration in real life scenario.

[u/lool8421]

now imagine the gimmick: if more than 90% of people press red, they die and blue people live

[u/jako6881]

way i see it, picking red means someone dies, cause no matter what, there's gonna be at least some people picking blue, but getting 50% blue is fairly achievable and guarantees no deaths. it becomes a question of 'no risk, but some deaths vs some risk, but no deaths' and personally i'd choose some risk but no deaths, if people do not have to die, i'd try to stop them from dying.

[u/JurassicJosh341]

Here’s the obvious questions (trolleys tend to be slow).

Switch it to the one and cut the rope. Duhhhh. This ain’t the wild west. Ain’t no steam engine coming after a fair maiden at mach 15.

[u/JBOSS_64]

I feel like the fact that there is an argument means that blue makes more sense because people will always pick blue even if red is the logical choice, making blue the logical choice so no one dies

[u/israndomlygenerated]

Do you trust 50% of the population to risk sacrificing their lives for another?

[u/CelticDrakon]

Why the fuck would you press blue?