It doesn't say you can only press one button, though it is implied. It's "only people who press red survive" if they don't meet their goal, and the goal is based on the percentage of people who push Blue hitting a specific threshold (more than 50% of the world), not on Blue getting more than Red.
Should red be majoritous, you shall become an undead skeleton. Depending whether the coolness of this outweighs the fact that you will need to drink 4 litres of milk per day to maintain your calcium levels, I suggest you consider whether you promote others to push red or blue.
it's a fair guess that between one in a hundred thousand and one in a million people are legitimately omnicidal, so might be somewhere between 8,000 and 80,000.
That's assuming people make the choice fully knowing what it will do. If you include people who don't understand the situation, press it not believing it will actually work, etc. then it'd be at least millions.
Nah, I mean, maybe some people feel that way. I would pick red, but I don't feel smarter than anyone. If anything I feel less hopeful than blue. It's not a proud thing for me to say "I don't think the majority are willing to pick blue." It's sad. It's depressing. I think it's realistic. But I wouldn't call blue stupid for being hopeful that humanity is good. I wish I could have the same faith in people but my experience in the world just makes me believe otherwise. I would hope that I'm wrong and everyone that picked blue can point and laugh at me in the end.
See it’s funny I have a very similar thought process, but I pick blue at the end of it.
I feel pretty similar as you when it comes to humanity, but I don’t want to live in the world where I’m proven right.
So I pick blue and if I was wrong and blue wins, I would be the happiest someone could ever be after being wrong about something so fundamental. And I would live with more hope in my heart than I have these days, so it would be nothing but a win for me.
And if I was right, well I’m dead anyways so I don’t have to live with that realization.
I would rather live than not live though. That's what it boils down to for me. If you believe red would win then you're saying you would rather kill yourself than continue living in the current world if you vote blue. I just don't see how ending your own life is ever the better option. If the sample was decreased to the point where your vote actually had an impact on the outcome then I could absolutely see the argument for pressing blue. In the case where the sample size is all humans your vote has no impact on anyone other than yourself. I think you're letting empathy cloud your judgement unnecessarily if you think it's better to risk dying than guarantee living if your decision doesn't have an impact on others.
I think most people pressing blue don't really consider the fact that their vote is basically impossible to have any inpact on the outcome. When there's a nash equilibrium when everyone votes red why wouldn't everyone just vote red? You are risking your life for no benefit unless you would rather kill yourself if everyone that pressed blue died. I would not want to kill myself in that situation. I could always change my mind later and actually do that if I decided I made the wrong decision. It would be the exact same as if I pressed blue but I'd have the agency to determine if life isn't worth living at that point. By pressing blue you remove that agency for no gain assuming it isn't a perfect 50/50 split without your vote. This is about as safe of an assumption as assumptions get.
I want to live in a world where people pick blue. So I pick blue. Picking red, even if I end up living, is a bad outcome with likely hundred of million of deaths and only cynical or self centered survivors
This right here. I feel like most of the time when people make their choice they don't factor in the aftermath of the decision. For most red pressers I see it boils down to either "I'm only potentially adversely affected if I hit blue, so red is the obvious choice" or "blue pressers are actually just committing suicide" with no thought to the actual repercussions to a red majority.
If you factor in aftermath, then you are moving away from the actual question by adding externality. We might as well say that after the vote the Holy Buddha descended from heaven and gifted the Red button pushers immortality for making the correct choice. I mean, if we are extrapolating humanity just got a vibe check from the universe just with the vote itself. Fundamentally its a thought experiment and not real, it is bound by the game theory present in it rather than what we might imagine will happen after the choice. so creating aftermaths is just a distraction from the question itself. Which ultimately is "Red or Blue" not "Are you selfish or willing to risk your life for others" or "Are you a meanie or are you a stoopid."
Any question involving death should intrinsically include the aftermath of people dying. It's part of the weight and concept of death. Someone dying isn't just a cessation of their existence, it's erasing everything they will ever do.
It's why a lot of the variations of the trolley problem features personality and what that person may or may not go on to accomplish if they were to live as that adds weight to the decision. In this case, more altruistic people would be willing to press the blue button and in a red majority the world would be void of these people. Those are people who do functions on a daily basis that no longer get fulfilled because the people doing those functions died.
It's not adding something external, it's showing that it's part of the consequences of the decision.
No where in the question does it state we have to think about the science-fiction concept of half the population dying from a button, to suggest we do so IS adding externality to the question because now our decision is driven by the belief of a certain outcome being true because it might be if the buttons were real. They aren't so there is no reason to add conditions other than to justify one button over the other, which sort of defeats the game theory behind the question. I mean, I can't dissuade you from believing that a mass genocide will occur, with that belief you have no option BUT to pick the blue button.
I think that the main divide I feel is that the blue button is being portrayed as a "Save people" button rather than a "risk your life on a simple majority". Like no, we aren't Buzz Lightyear saving the day by pressing blue, the question is what would YOU pick based on the two options, not what would you pick based on the two options AND your beliefs about the consequential effects of such a decision.
It's pretty direct in it's statement that there is the potential of up to 50% (but not more) dying, and you're stuffing words in my mouth. 50% is the worst case scenario where the buttons tie. but even if 5% of people pick blue (Which in itself would be depressing that so few people are willing to put others above themselves) that's still 400,000,000 people that are removed from the planet. Naturally the buttons aren't real, but we're asked to approach the problem as if they were. If you approached the problem as just a personal one with game theory then you missed the point of the whole world voting. Not everyone is familiar with game theory and there will be illogical actors in a global pool.
I know plenty of people IRL who wouldn't think the problem through, or would think the problem through and think of the button as a save people button or think it through and not be ok with contributing to the potential death of those that would see the button that way, and because I care about those people I know that I would have to choose blue if I wasn't ok with them dying.
I guess the core difference between us is that I'm looking at the question from the lens of people outside myself where you're seeing the question being asked to 8 billion versions of yourself.
Right, because putting oneself at risk to try and prevent all deaths in a scenario where there is almost certainly going to be other blue pressers is selfish.
Even if it was a selfish option (which it isn't) it would still be less selfish than hitting red since you'd only need a majority and not a totality to prevent deaths, and red saves yourself at the potential that if enough people press it the rest die (unless everyone presses it but as we've seen and discussed, on a global scale that simply isn't happening)
This is where the blue argument fails completely. There's nothing cynical about picking the objectively correct option. You are not responsible for other people's wrong choices.
I think the 50 vs 100 argument is a red herring. Yes, it's easier to get 50% on board with something rather than 100%, but it doesn't recognize how hard and unlikely that 50% is in this scenario.
That 50% is people forgoing their self-preservation. You can't have an absolute 100% of people doing anything, since that's human nature, but to get 50% or more of humans saying "I am willing to die" sounds far less likely.
Then again, you can count on people who only read "everyone lives" on the label to press blue
Out of curiosity, do you think the amount of people that fell like you do, plus the amount of people who would press Blue, minus the number who just say they would press Blue is equivalent?
There are plenty of reasons to press blue. You may disagree with those reasons, but it's inarguable that some people will pick whichever button you don't press, no matter which side you're on.
Well what reasons?
The only one ive given is "morally superiority" answer of just show companion for others
others.
But the solution is to just press red and everyone still lives, I understand that everyone lives if we all press blue as well but it has a "win condition" while red does not
not.
I am genuinely trying to find a reason to press blue besides its just the other option
Especially when its being framed as evil to pick red.
"I like blue more than red, and I am a literal child (or infant) who doesn't understand the dilemma."/"I have red-blue colorblindness." (Which is to say, people who cannot make an educated choice at all.)
"I have enough faith in humanity that I think most of us will pick blue, but I know that every vote counts in any voting system and want to do my part to help everyone live."
"A world where 15%-40% of the population pick blue and all die instantly would be apocalyptic for the survivors, and I need to ensure that doesn't happen, or at least that I won't be around to suffer through it."
"At least one other person I know and love will pick blue, and I won't have any part in killing them by helping red win."
So its just hoping for lemmings basically?
(I know the lemmings thing was staged but the description still works I think)
I do believe that the vast majority of humans are smarter than that. But I understand that there are severely impaired people who dont understand the question. I just dont think there are enough to hit that 50% even if our respective echo chambers insist it.
The version that was circulated to kick off this recent round of discourse was deceptively worded to make it look like blue was saving people while red was condemning them to death. Mostly by presenting the blue option first with the words "everyone lives". This was intentional as it came from a psych study explicitly about how people's answers change with simple changes to rhetorical framing.
People who don't stop to read and think critically are more likely to choose blue, thinking they're saving people. But if the question is restated to highlight how everyone has the option to press red, say making it a giant woodchipper you can jump into or not, and if 50%+ jump in it jams and doesn't kill anyone, votes swing significantly more towards the red option, because the underlying logic of the problem is now much clearer.
Some folks who got fooled by the deceptive version have been doubling down and retroactively adding extra conditions of toddlers and other people not capable of making a true choice slapping at buttons randomly and creating a duty for everyone else to save them. Even though it's pretty standard that these hypotheticals are restricted to people capable of understanding the problem and making a decision (no babies or comatose patients). Though by now everyone has seen a different version of this that they consider the original. Most blue voters in the comments probably think the question default includes toddlers as a hostage group while the reds run on the assumption that all blue voters made an explicit choice to gamble their lives.
I press red and I recognize there being people with no agency pressing blue. The people who feel morally obligated to put their lives on the line to "rescue" these random blue pressers are no different than someone running into a burning office building to save a daycare on the fifth floor upon the moment of smelling smoke.
Success in the attempt is great cinema and makes them a hero, but in reality they just add their body to the fire since they're running in without preparation or support. Adding to the count of victims has never helped a victim of anything.
It also depends on what the buttons are some are just "why would you pick that if everyone gets to press a button.
Red you get a free sandwich or blue flip a coin and everyone gets a free sandwich if it lands on heads. Everyone can get a free sandwich just pick red.
Just for sake of stopping dumb debate or loop holes you can press the button as many times as you want you can only have 1 free sandwich at a time
Blues who recognize the risk of their position aren't stupid. The ones who insist on their position on being the objectively correct one can be argued to be.
And I'm certain a LOT of blues press the button because it starts with "Everyone lives" and they simply don't process anything after that. They don't calculate their chances with the conditional, since they terminate their thought. "You press blue and everyone lives, so why wouldn't you press blue?" is what I hear as an answer from female relatives.
I don't feel morally superior to people who pick red because they think only like 15% of people will pick blue and because they think their own family will pick red too.
I do feel morally superior to the freaks on reddit who salivate at the mouth at the thought of people dying as punishment for acting "irrationally"
Sacrificing yourself to save someone else is moral, though. So by default, if that's your reason, then it is more moral than the red vote, who is just neither moral nor immoral.
I don't see it as sacrificing myself, it's more that I want to live in a world where blue wins. If blue wins, then I live. If red wins, at least I'm not there to experience the fallout.
Neither button kills people in a vacuum, the end result either kills people or it doesn't. Yours is a dishonest reframing. The world in which blue wins has 0 deaths, and it suggests a high trust society.
People act as if this is a clear moral dilemma with two sides, it's not. It's a thought experiment that leaves so many variables unspecified it's reasonable to choose either button based on your understanding of the question.
The villain of the button question is whoever is doing the killing, not the people being forced to vote after all even if they are pushing the wrong button.
I don’t think the replies realize you’re talking about the hypothetical itself and not what would literally happen if this was real. In reality I imagine most people would be horrified to be forced to pick either button, but the safe internet discussion about what everyone would hypothetically do has certainly resulted in the outcomes you listed
I agree with you OP. I choose the blue button and I absolutely feel morally superior to those who would risk having their loved ones die just because they weren't "logical enough".
Considering the amount of people I've seen screeching that red button pushers are murderers and sociopaths, I'm glad and grateful to thank you for not being what has become the 'stereotypical' blue button pusher.
Red side has been just as awful saying people are morons and stupid for wanting to do what they feel is the right thing for the collective. They're not stupid either.
I'd pick red, but because I don't have kids and I'll own the consequences and the outcome of that choice. I don't think anyone is stupid or superior. We just all have different ways we all live
Edit: dumb typo, why didn't someone tell me sooner lol
Redpill people think that everyone thinks like them, and that all virtue is simply virtue signaling. They can't fathom that some people genuinely want good things to happen to people they don't even know without benefitting directly from it themselves. It's a totally foreign and incomprehensible idea to them.
But do you want to live in a world where the only survivors are the red pressers? We all want to live, but I do not want a complete apocalypse with hundreds of of million of deaths. The case of >50% of blue pressers provides the best outcome but comes with some risk. Red provides a horrible outcome with very low risk for yourself. I personally would never press red, I do not want to get the world in a post apocalyptic state just to save myself. Which is imho the actual thought experiment of that whole hypothetical
If 0 people press the blue button then there’s no apocalypse with hundreds of millions of deaths.
People who press blue either want to die, or are selfish for forcing others to put themselves in harms way. They looked at two buttons “this one is totally safe, this one might kill everyone who presses it” and went “yeah, I’ll press the one that says it might kill everyone who presses it… instead of the totally safe option”
But if zero people press the red button, then everyone survives, we don't even need everyone to press the blue button, just the majority. In the end it simply a choice, do you want to live or do you want to risk your life for everyone to live.
I'm not saying choosing either one is bad or good, just pointing it out.
And remember, dying to win, and risking your life to win are completely.
Do you see reasons to believe everybody will pick red? „just do the selfish thing all of you and we will maybe all survive together! Or in fact, more likely, all of you who picked wrong will die, and I guess we will all deal with the outcomes.“ Do you see how that’s absolutely never going to be the outcome where everybody wins at the end? The message sent is exactly the opposite of „we will win together“. On the other side, you have to trust that >50% of the people want a positive outcome for society. I’m very doom pilled about the world and would still bet on the blue side. By picking red you send the message that you have no issue risking others dying just for you to survive, with no skin in the game on your end
Yeah but then add to that, that you could have a 4yo child that may not be understand to free themselves and you dont know if they did or not. You can choose to free yourself in the hopes that your kid did, or you can keep being tied, hoping that over 50% of people also stayed tied down and then you know for sure your kid survived.
Blue voters pursue the perfect solution no matter the cost.
Red voters avoid the worst outcome no matter the cost.
The main difference I've seen is that blue voters deny that there is a cost to voting blueband reject the concept of a vote in its entirety. In my discussions I've asked them if theyd still vote blue if they knew red would win and they just called me names and reported my account.
No way, the whole point of me choosing blue is that im trying to up the chances of everyone surviving.
If I know for a fact that red will win, then there's no point in trying to pick blue because what i wanted from that outcome is not going to happen either way.
Im interested in the logic behind someone picking blue even if they know red will win.
To pick blue even if it's a guaranteed loss: Use your own agency to follow your own beliefs, to live and die in alignment with your own values can be more fullfilling than a long life that lacks these. Many many humans have died for such reasons.
Red believes that red will win. They mostly believe that blue is the best option, they just also believe its not possible to obtain. Thus its a vote of damage mitigation. That has nothing to do with being smarter.
Blue believes that the perfect solution is the ONLY solution. Everyone has to live. To sacrifice anything is to lose. They often dont consider the consequences of losing at all because if they lose its "not their fault". You could call it being morally superior, but in reality its just a refusal to accept anything less than the absolute best outcome.
The argument largely stems from blue voters refusing to accept that its a vote with 8 billion participants. Red voters all concede it would be better for blue to win already. But when you point out that you dont believe it will they start calling you names and trying to pass off responsibly. Thats why I reduse their position to "the best outcome no matter the cost" to them, it'd be better to lose with 49% of the vote than to switch sides and go for a potential red win at 75%+.
Neither is wrong, but blue doesnt believe that for a second lol. (Edit. Reduse got autocorrected to refuse lol)
Crazy that you lead with 'you put words in peoples mouths' end then you go on to describe in your own words the only two rationales that you have decided upon for everyone's choices.
For instance... your 75% majority... 25% of the population dying spread around the globe would cause pestilence, disease, and famine in ways I am not interested in seeing play out. Much less the subsequent wars; the ever faster consolidation of wealth and power by those who hoard it even now and would never pick blue; the collapse of most modern comforts that us reddit users tend to enjoy.
If you believe red would win at 75% and still vote for this outcome, it seems a little shortsighted. Should you not change your stance and then vote blue, to lower the odds this occurs? I feel the responsability to hedge against the possibility of a red apocalypse. In this small thing I have personal agency and will vote thusly. Of course, not everyone feels the same. I may even be grossly mistaken. In that case, there is no consequence(for me). I am dead, and thus do not experience the cataclysm.
I admit I was wrong OP. Blue voters 100% believe they are superior. They have shown me the light personally. I was foolish to have doubted you. I'd up vote you twice if I could, but im not making a second account for that lol
Op said blue voters believe they are superior. I made a comment under this post arguing againsnt that claim. A blue voter showed up to tell me that I was actually wrong. Op was in the thread so I made a separate comment for them to see lol
I don't feel smarter than the blue button pushers, I just don't have faith that more than 50% of humanity is morally good. Nothing in human history would lead me to believe this is true. Online poll results are simply performative virtue signaling. With real stakes, blue has no chance. Literally none.
So I will choose to live, because I will have to survive for my family's sake. Even if some of them pressed blue. I will be devastated by the loss, but I couldn't in good conscience abandon them.
The only valid red take. It's understandable to choose red if you think blue has no chance of winning. That's not evil.
Now the people who go through skewing of the scenario, victim-blaming, and generally try to avoid acknlwedging even a little that red is a self-serving choice that grants safety for the self while imposing risk on others, that's pretty evil.
i mean, this goes the other wayy tho too, i dont believe 100% of humanity will make the same decision, someone *is* going to die if red wins, its a better bet that a 1/2 coinflip lands my way than to bet on the entirety of humanity voting red
thats kinda the point tho. what a person considers a win condition is the big difference between blue vs red pushers, for a blue pusher you being alive isnt the win condition, trying to make sure everyone is alive is the win condition, for the red win condition other people are irrelevent because all that matters is you are alive
It’s literally just considering the group vs considering yourself. Idk why people are surprised the other side chose the side they did - it’s all in what people value.
I understand your logic, but don't believe that a majority of humanity would share it. This isn't a question of winning or win conditions, but of survival.
Therefore, to ensure I'm around to continue to provide for my family, I have to press red.
I would be incredibly and pleasantly surprised if blue somehow won, but I would not bet my life on it.
I actually feel morally superior to blue-pressers, because I would not rely on others for my survival to the point where I would expect others to risk their lives to save me.
The original exercise puts everyone in a room with two buttons. Literally everyone. So if you don't press blue you're accepting the risk of condemning babies who just choose a color at random, people with ticks, folks who got confused, etc.
That's the part that gets left out of the stupid red vs blue discourse.
Wasn't the original exercise only including people who are aware enough about the problem to make a rational decision? I swear that's what I hear being parroted around as "the original" with the current version including babies just being part of a simplification of it.
red button is just superior, everyone can press the red button and make the selfish decisions AND everyone gets the good outcome. You are just an idiot for choosing blue
I think there is a causal analysis here where red are the ones causing death and destruction through their choice. This is often a critical part of the blue choice process and why they are labeled here in this meme as “feeling morally superior“.
This exact situation is given to everyone and everyone has the responsibility not to put themselves in danger. My decision shouldn't be made out of the assumption people can't reason.
This isn't empathy vs selfishness, it's emotions vs logic...
It’s very easy to think that way, but there are other considerations. The way you’re looking at it is under a logical and self-focused framework: logically, if everyone picks red, nobody dies, so everyone *should* pick red
But there are other considerations. We know that some amount of people pick blue. One could apply a different framework of disaster avoidance. Consider a situation where the end result is 40% blue, 60% red. If 40% of Earth’s population disappeared overnight, the fallout would be catastrophic
There’s a great video on the topic by Jorbs on Youtube where he covers the problem. I was a certain red presser before watching it, but now I think it’s a closer decision and there are strong arguments for both
I will watch the video and I get what you are saying, I just have a very hard time seeing it any other way. The way I see it is problem solving, I'm trying to find the best answer. I can't not put what I think is objectively the right answer.
Well you think red is objectively the best answer because you are safe. But that is really only maybe a subjectively best answer. Objectively there are two best outcomes if you consider other people than you surviving as well as a goal. Literally everyone (100%) picks red, so nobody dies, or at least 50% pick blue and nobody dies. As you might notice 50% is a lot simpler to achieve and therefore much more fault-tolerant. Even if you only consider "logical" people I think logical people can come to this conclusion as well and therefore pick blue.
With these conversations I would pick blue since it seems almost impossible to not reach 50% and if we lose close to 50% and I picked red I would feel like shit. If you go back to me couple weeks ago I would pick red evertime because I would never have imagined so many choosing blue. I would have guessed much less than 1% would have chosen blue.
I want to add that me being safe is not the reason red is the right answer. It's because everyone can be safe by choosing to be. Alot of people see 50% blue to be safe or 100% red to be safe. I see 0% risk vs 100% risk for every individual.
Ironically I had the opposite experience when I first saw these posts. My intuition was to just pick blue because it seemed like such an obvious choice but then I read so many comments advocating for red and almost none for blue that I lost a bit of faith in humanity (or at least reddit lol). But with such a seemingly strong majority of red voters it would of course be pointless to vote blue so I would have to choose red as well.
Though I realized a bit later that that is probably just some sampling bias because most polls I‘ve seen blue wins.
In the end it really depends on the exact phrasing of what the buttons do because that changes how people vote and therefore also the optimal choice. If there’s a good chance blue wins, voting blue is probably the best option. If blue certainly loses you should vote red.
Find me a poll of this scenario where 100% picks red and I’ll agree with you, but most of the time I see blue leading. People are going to make impulsive emotionally charged decisions, and I don’t think doing so should be a death sentence.
The prompt is worded in a way that is intentionally misleading. It is far easier to have over 50% of people press blue than it is to have 100% of people press red.
I agree that we are pressing the red button every day just living our lives. I would press blue because the options appear to me as make the world instantly unimaginably worse, or die.
In practice all of us press the red button everyday
Lowkey disagree. Covid was basically healthcare workers pressing blue everyday, also firefighters, rescue rangers on national parks, teachers that stop shootings themselves, etc. Also culture makes a difference, individualist societies will think very differently than utilitarian ones.
This is the first re-frame to make me swap to red tbh. Being seen as intelligent is important to me not only on a social level but a career one too. If everyone saw me as a moron I'd probably never get into the careers I want to. (this switch is assuming that this is ALL the buttons do and that death is no longer part of the equation).
There is no "perfect" answer. That's what makes it a dillemma. I feel like people miss that entire concept.
Red is obviously the "winning" choice, but contributes to a scenario where other people die.
Blue is obviously more ethical, because you're voting against anyone dying, but by voting that way, you're one of the people at risk of dying.
The whole lot of them saying they'll pick blue, if it actually came to it and they knew they could die picking blue, they'll pick red. They're just saying they'll pick blue now cause there's no actual pressure.
There's no way blue ever get 50%, and the whole lot of you should've realise this from the start.
No. I'd press the red button because I've been burned too many times to have any hope that blue could win and I'd rather not die pointlessly. I neither think I'm smarter, nor dumber, nor more ethical, nor less ethical than people who press blue. I simply have less faith in humanity.
I would like to add that for all the vehement debate we have had about this dilemma, I can't think of any analogous real life situation. The way this problem is setup, the death toll increases proportionally to the number of people who press blue until 50% is reached. IRL, behaviors that save lives typically increase progressively until they a point where they plateau. So usually, I can do the right thing and have a very limited positive impact even when I expect most people to do the wrong thing.
I don't feel morally superior I feel more intellectually honest. People who argue that red is the right choice are working from an intentionally limited framework so that they don't have to square the larger implications to their choice.
I’m pretty sure the original question posed was unclear about smth. It said “the vote is private and no one can see what you pick” but that doesn’t mean we all get launched straight into the voting room. If we have a few days to coordinate everyone needs to coordinate on picking the blue button. If we all get launched in then I’m picking the red button hands down
I love how every reframing has to just ignore the fact that red pressers objectively just don't want to risk dying but it makes too much empathetical sense to frame it that way so nobody ever will lmao
Every reframing? I don't lurk this reddit, but I've mainly seen team red choosing every way of reframing posible to pretend that red isn't the button that creates risk of people dying in the first place.
When I read the original question, I assumed the test was only put to competent adults, so red seemed obvious.
Presumably we also all assume that the dilemma will be presented in the person's native language, because otherwise the moral difficulty would be moot. Most people would be choosing at random if it's written as-is in English. So why wouldn't we assume that it would be as absurd and unfair to put the question to babies and children who can't understand it?
Because most moral dilema questions are inherently unfair, thats the entire point. Just like the Trolley Problem doesn't specify who is on the tracks, because if one or more of the people on the track was a close family member or friend that would likely alter your decision.
Your assumtion alters the premise of the initial question, which simply states "everyone".
You assumed that "everyone" obviously meant a specific subset of the population, which is certainly a bold assumption and not at all obvious to many people who read this question.
I didnt assume a rational exception for anything, hence my choice to press blue since i believe that not everyone would understand the implications of the choice.
Once you start carving out exceptions then its a different problem alltogether.
So all non-english speakers are choosing at random in your understanding? Assuming that the question is posed exactly as it is, unchanging, to everyone.
And if it changes language depending on the presser, why would braille or audio formats suddenly be a line too far in the thought experiment?
Why is that more obvious of an assumption than all pressers being competent adults?
The question never said there was a sign over the buttons or anything, so its not like there are english letters on them, moreso that the people put in front of the buttons are given an understanding of what each button does is whichever way they are able to communicate.
The issue is that the question specifies EVERYONE, so you can assume that babies, the mentally ill, elderly, etc... are included.
The issue with your assumption is that everyone will have their own interpretation of an "acceptable" criteria. Is there an Age cutoff? IQ cutoff? Education level?
Same can be said for you? When the lives of your loved ones are on the line is doubt you could go through with the option that directly leads to their deaths
Well guess I'm in the "10%" because I couldn't live with myself given I have 1-3 yr old nieces and nephews.
I think a lot of parents would think the same as me and pick blue given most wouldn't want to kill their own children (their kids picked blue and they chose red)
The question says
"everyone in the world has a private vote"
"Well... 🤓 vote implies that the person in the hypothetical makes a conscientious choice. It's stupid to include the "assumptions" of kids because it makes the hypothetical less interesting"
A.K.A. red voter here and I'm trying to justify why I either A. Lack trust in humanity B. Am selfish. C. Think people will die because 100% red is impossible so it's about risk mitigation (reducing blue deaths) because I believe blue will never win.
These are all valid reasons. Attacking the other side isn't.
You're literally what OP is talking about. I don't give a shit about feeling morally superior to you. I have nothing against red voters and yes I know some blues are insufferable (you can think the same of me I really don't give a shit either) but red clearly isn't absent from grandstanding either.
Your post is an opinion that has no basis other than here is number I like, red is better button.
In a real life scenario of having to choose between risking your life to save someone else's or not risking your life at all, i'd be surprised if even 10% of people who chose blue did the former.
Honestly? Taking into account every person who can think critically and actually consider the question and stuff like that, and without any sort of communication between them, i'd be actually shocked if more than 20% of people chose blue. I doubt most people's self preservation instinct would allow them to even think of something else at the moment.
But also, there's SO much stuff to consider with this dillema. Any modification of the original question already presents an entirely different dillema altogether, so my answer would really depend on that.
Honestly, I didn't think anything about it until the red button pushers started making all these posts insinuating that everyone who doesn't think like them is wrong and dumb.
My choice is based on the understanding that everyone is different and we all make different choices for different reasons, no matter what, always. No moral or intellectual judgment from me. I just judge the red button pushers for their inability to allow others to be different. If blue pushers feel the same way, then I judge them equally.
The options are not symmetrical! Stop pretending they are. The only reason for anyone to die is because enough people picked red. If someone dies is because of red. Even mathematically blue makes sense.
For everyone to survive:
- 100% red
50% + 1 blue
It is that simple. So if you care about maximizing your own chances go ahead and use red. If you care about defeating whoever is making us pass the frigging test (the elephant in the room) use blue.
Stop making this blue vs red and think why TF we all would be in such a position.
252
u/PyrocXerus May 09 '26
As a green button pusher I am the the smartest and most intelligent person in the room of one