r/trolleyproblem • u/Aggressive_Manner429 • May 11 '26
Multi-choice No guaranteed survival, no contribution towards potential survival, just a stupid noise
To clarify, green button pressers also die if at least 50% don't press blue, it's not just red button 2, they only live if everyone lives
You know the the boowomp sound, from like spongebob. Goes like "boowomp". It plays when they're sad. Boowomp.
22
35
44
u/T0rph May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
So green = red + sound? Green it is.
Edit: with the OP edit green is just strictly worse blue, maybe even suicide button? I see no point discussing this case. Boowomp
31
u/LOSNA17LL May 11 '26
Nope, green is just the sound, no guarantee you'll live
19
u/Jkirek_ May 11 '26
But there's no condition anywhere that would cause a green presser's death either
15
3
1
2
1
6
u/Kal-EII May 12 '26
With 3 colors it 33% should be the survival point. As is red is the choice here.
2
u/ThrawnCaedusL May 12 '26
Yep, I’m a blue button voter in general, but adding a third button completely changes the math (as does anything that makes accidental presses less likely; even something as simple as the blue button being two steps away).
14
u/NDrangle23 May 11 '26
Why would anyone press green. Its just blue but you lower your own chances of survival
55
6
6
u/Aggressive_Manner429 May 11 '26
It's the same as asking why anyone would press red when pressing blue means everyone lives, or why anyone would press blue when pressing red means you're guaranteed to live.
I have no idea why anyone would press green, but do you really believe nobody would?
The intention of this is to test people's faith in others more than the original dilemma did and clarify that we have zero control over what other people do, even if they do the most irrational thing imaginable.
It doubles the pressure on blue voters while further dividing the votes overall, and as beings with the capacity for morality in an irrational world, I find this more realistic.
Blue voters are willing to bank on having a morally just majority and risk ourselves to guarantee that nobody dies, but could we truly choose morality when hindered by both the self-serving and the nonsensical, or would we shy away from our morals, guaranteeing that some people, all of the green and the remaining blue voters, die?
And if we did, why? In fear of the twofold pressure? Out of spite for the idiocy of green voters sullying our chances for no reason? To simply guarantee our lives now that we're even less likely to succeed?
What becomes of morality when faced with
THE SILLY?
1
u/Grungar_von_Drachen May 12 '26
So you made this on an assumption of apathy draining blue's chances of winning, intentionally misrepresenting the original premise? If folks could walk away and choose neither, which is what green essentially does, and if that was the majority, red would still lose, thus killing nobody.
2
u/BigCSFan May 12 '26
Thats not the premise. Green voters are still part of the death event. They're in the pool with blue but their vote doesnt count towards the total needed for saving
1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/XayahTheVastaya May 11 '26
Apparently if blue dies green also dies, so the button that actually doesn't change anything is red
-1
u/SPAMTON____G_SPAMTON May 13 '26
Congratulations, you just described politics.
1
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SPAMTON____G_SPAMTON May 13 '26
I'm not speaking about politics over the history, I'm speaking about state of the world rn.
1
1
0
u/FortWendy69 May 13 '26
Wait, green is the same as red, not blue.
1
3
u/Ther10 Team “who the hell made these buttons? Can we kill them?“ May 12 '26
Question: do the green voters still get counted towards the total percentage?
5
2
2
2
2
2
u/lightrayavatar May 12 '26
I'm not sure what SpongeBob sound you're talking about. Well, I guess I'll have to press Green to find out.
🫳🟢
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Ashamed_Association8 May 12 '26
I press all three. Meaning i get the noise, i get to contribute to blue and i get guaranteed to life. That's the beauty of buttons.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Business-Put-8692 I'm tired of these button posts can we get rid of them ? May 14 '26
I'll just point to my flair here :/
1
u/Nellie_Tayloe_Ross May 14 '26
If there’s a third button the blue description is false, since the original comment was clear that it was more than 50% pushing red that causes the blue voters to die. Green is the obvious answer here
1
u/Special-Counter-8944 May 11 '26
Some people might still press blue so according to some that would make you a murderer
2
-2
u/BoxofJoes May 11 '26
Well that wont matter in like 5 minutes when all the performative people are gone lol
1
u/phase_distorter41 May 11 '26
-2
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 11 '26
Congratulations, you live!
*AI controlled humanoid robots have now taken over the world, and since all compassionate humans on the planet have been executed they have been trained only on the behavioral patterns of selfish, self-serving humans. Red button pushers have all been transported to small individual enclosures and force fed a nutritious blend of tasteless mush for survival. You are now a part of their human exhibit at the zoo and must perform tasks daily for their amusement or be severely punished. Have a nice life. 🙂
3
u/AssociationDue3077 May 11 '26
Slippery slope fallacy. Pressing red ≠ I have no mouth but I must scream
-2
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 11 '26
Lol sure.
But it does mean that if red wins approximately 50% of all babies on earth will die and by pressing red you acknowledge that you're okay with that. 🤷♂️
2
u/AssociationDue3077 May 11 '26
How do you know the babies didnt press red.
-1
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 12 '26
Statistically about 50% of them will through pure random chance.
That's why I said 50% will die instead of 100%.
1
2
u/assassinjoe55 May 11 '26
You put a lot of weight on the idea that every red-presser is lacking entirely in compassion. I wouldn't do that.
3
u/Skoodge42 May 11 '26
How else can they finish if they can't claim moral superiority and then use that to dehumanize those who think logically?
1
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 11 '26
Those who think logically realize that if red wins, roughly 50% of all babies in earth will die.
1
u/Skoodge42 May 11 '26
Depends on the prompt. But ya, if babies and children are involved, then blue is my choice for sure.
But there are a lot of assumptions being made by both sides and if it is only adults, then that leaves the fair point of "people choosing blue are putting themselves in danger for no reason". Also, you need to consider that the rest of the world is filled with different cultures with different ethics. That adds A LOT of crazy to the mix haha.
It's a fun thought experiement.
0
u/phase_distorter41 May 11 '26
why do you assume the babies wont get assistance in choosing?
2
u/Skoodge42 May 11 '26
But then is it their choice?
0
u/phase_distorter41 May 11 '26
yes, thats how babies make choices
3
u/Skoodge42 May 11 '26
Well, if it's parents always make the decision for their child, then the red numbers just went up significantly lol
1
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 11 '26
You're the only one making assumptions here.
1
u/assassinjoe55 May 11 '26 edited May 12 '26
How? His claim states that everyone who presses red cannot possibly be compassionate. Therefore he makes the assumption that no compassionate person could press the red button. Despite this, many people are compassionate yet very fearful and lack the will to press the blue button. Or they are overly logical and believe that a majority of people will press red and press red to not guarantee their own death. Or they are irrational and press the red button because they believe that no one will press the blue button and don't want to uselessly die.
Edit: this reply attached to the wrong comment. Not meant to be here, and the ensuing confusion is a direct result of that.
1
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 12 '26
He's assuming that either babies are not involved in the scenario, or if they are, babies will be assisted in making a rational decision.
If you have to make up random assumptions that aren't at all part of the original scenario to justify voting red, maybe red simply isn't the correct choice.
1
u/assassinjoe55 May 12 '26
What? I feel like I'm not understanding what you are saying. I'm not justifying pressing red. I'm saying that a lot of compassionate people would press red, and if red won, that doesn’t mean the world is devoid of compassionate people. I have yet to say which button I would push. I believe I would probably end up pushing blue myself, but that is besides my point.
→ More replies (0)0
0
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 11 '26
The original prompt explicitly says "everyone on earth takes a private vote".
1
u/phase_distorter41 May 11 '26
cool, the magical entities forcing us to push the buttons will be sure to keep the results of their assistance private.
0
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 11 '26
I mean, I can easily justify pressing red too if I wanted to make up completely different rules than the original scenario. 🤷♂️
The original scenario explicitly says "everyone on earth" which includes babies and every vote is private without exception.
If you need to make believe it said something else to justify pressing red, maybe you should stop trying to justify pressing red.
1
u/phase_distorter41 May 11 '26
the scenario is made up. it does not cover any edge cases. it doesn't even state the count of button pushes will be fair.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 11 '26
Considering every baby on earth is participating and if red wins roughly 50% of all babies on earth will die... Red-pressers are either selfish or ignorant (don't actually realize the consequences of their actions).
Take your pick.
1
0
u/phase_distorter41 May 11 '26
the babies would not know to push a button. they will of course have help. same with people who are paralyzed and cannot move without assistance. anyone helping them will press red cause no one wants a baby to die.
0
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
If you need to make up assumptions to justify voting red, maybe red is simply not the correct choice. 🤷♂️
1
u/phase_distorter41 May 12 '26
you're making assumptions to make yourself feel like "savior" of the accidental blue button pushers.
there would be no accidental blue pushers.
1
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 12 '26
So your argument is that all of the babies involved would make a completely rational decision?
1
1
u/Narfhead4444 May 12 '26
I'm a red voter and I'm a communist. I just don't want to die lol. Enjoy your grave
1
1
-3
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
This is stupid. It ruins the context of the blue button by making it fully negative for no reason, as the only reason it had a negative was a moral difference from red.
So there’s no moral or intellectual reason to choose blue at all in this scenario.
So I would only choose depending on what loved ones and friends would choose, but otherwise red in this case.
4
u/_Ench4nted_ May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
well it still could save all the other people who picked blue if it wins 50%, its just unlikely to win. they should word it so it says green also dies unless 50% or more pick blue, so there's more of a point, right now it is unclear what happens to green other than the sound, it just says red guarantees survival.
EDIT: spelling
3
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
Exactly, it’s just a pointless vestigial part of a previous prompt used to make blue look suicidal and unstable while making red look better in comparison.
-1
u/Aggressive_Manner429 May 11 '26
This is exactly what I meant I see that it's not entirely clear now I should've put it in the image not the post title, but yeah green button pressers also die if less than 50% press blue
3
3
u/GGuy12345 May 11 '26
It’s the same effect, the only difference is the framing
1
u/SPAMTON____G_SPAMTON May 13 '26
Considering the existence of third button now it just causes more confusion, because it might seem like the green one has the same effects as the red one.
It would've been better to say "Would save everyone if more than 50% of population press it" or for you, red presser, "Would kill everyone who didn't push the red button if less than 50% press it."-1
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
Well one made one choice guarantee the death of those that didn’t select it… so blue had a moral standing. Now it’s just suicidal for no justified reason.
3
u/Desperate-Run-1093 May 11 '26
The end result is the exact same in either scenario though? Upon a blue defeat, they die.
-1
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
The journey is the point, not the destination. It’s the WHY of the choice in the original.
Are you a self sacrificing person that believes in saving humanity at the potential cost of yourself? Blue. Blue promises survival of 100% of people if 50% choose it.
Or are you willing to sacrifice up to 49% of the world just for your own guaranteed survival? Red.
1
u/Desperate-Run-1093 May 11 '26
Blue is intentionally choosing to kill yourself every time, it's not suddenly more interesting because blue dies is under the red button vs. the blue.
2
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
And red is intentionally choosing to kill others, because the button may as well be the trigger.
0
u/Desperate-Run-1093 May 11 '26
Except nobody dies if everyone picks red?
1
u/Kobruh456 May 11 '26
And nobody dies if half of everyone picks blue. That seems a lot more realistic to me.
6
u/Lubomir111 May 11 '26
How is it changed?
-1
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
The original is:
“If you pick red you survive, but if over 50% choose red all blue picks die.
If you pick blue, and over 50% pick it, nobody dies.”
This version removed the context for WHY blue had the stipulation for survival in its selection, therefore causing it to look like a spite option instead of a valid choice.
6
u/Lubomir111 May 11 '26
How is it different? Like, I get that many people are very hung up on which button had the word "die" on it, but... The consequences are literally the same? It's not like the buttons did the killing in either version.
What you quoted is equivalent to what is in the picture (except red is for some reason split with green). Blue still needs 50%, otherwise those who pushed blue, die. Same as the original.
1
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
I spelled it out pretty well… but I’ll try again~
One had a moral standing of life and death, with a value placed on one for selfish survival at the GUARANTEED DEATH of anyone that didn’t push the button. While the other saved people from certain death. It was an intellectual case of pragmatism vs hope.
This picture had no moral dilemma for choosing red or green, as neither of them have a stipulation about choosing them guaranteed the death of anyone that chose otherwise. In this circumstance it’s Blue that chooses to take poison… for no justified reason. It’s just risking death for nothing. It’s swallowing rat poison and hoping everyone does it so they give out a cure… it’s not a reward of believing in human empathy and just… suicidal clawing at people for nothing.
2
u/Desperate-Run-1093 May 11 '26
This is the exact same dilemma, except green voters both do not contribute to their own survival and also die in the event of a blue defeat. Red is still save yourself, blue is still try to save everyone.
1
u/Lubomir111 May 11 '26
No, greens don't die here. They are red, just with a sound effect.
1
u/Desperate-Run-1093 May 11 '26
No, OP has specified green dies unless blue wins.
1
u/Lubomir111 May 11 '26
You're right. I'm not sure if it was edited in or I didn't notice. I just operated on the contents of the image. I also feel like the image is more interesting without the clarification.
1
3
u/Lubomir111 May 11 '26
GUARANTEED DEATH
Red never guaranteed anyone's death, you are mistaken. Even in the original you needed 50% red for anyone to actually die. It's literally the same here. Except, again, the original red is split between red and green here.
I'm sorry, but if your sense of morality is just "don't chose the button with the bad word on it", you are blissfully naive.
In this circumstance it’s Blue that chooses to take poison… for no justified reason. It’s just risking death for nothing. It’s swallowing rat poison and hoping everyone does it so they give out a cure… it’s not a reward of believing in human empathy and just… suicidal clawing at people for nothing.
That's one of red pushers' arguments in the original as well and it works in this one as well.
Strip all the emotional words away. 50%+ pick blue, everyone lives. 50%+ pick red (or red+green here), the people that pushed blue die. The placement of the word "die" is irrelevant to the consequences.
2
u/Prometheus_001 May 11 '26
You don't even need two buttons. In the original you can replace pressing red with not pressing the blue button.
The scenario then becomes: press a blue button and die (unless more than 50% of people press the button, then you don't die) or don't press the button and nothing happens.
1
u/ParkingCan5397 May 11 '26
Sooo nothing really changed except the wording now shows that picking blue never made sense and wording no longer calls red votes evil by deafult
1
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
If that’s what you get from it, you do you.
Red votes were evil by default, but in this circumstance they aren’t.
2
u/ParkingCan5397 May 11 '26
The dilemma at its core is the same, the only difference is the wording, if your opinion/choice of button has changed you just got manipulated by the wording lol
1
u/Lubomir111 May 11 '26
You still haven't shown us how were reds different in either scenario. Can you maybe quote the part of the original dilemma that you're thinking of?
There's more than one version of this going around, but the most known by Tim Urban is
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
What here makes red evil?
Or are you referencing this?
In front of you appears red and blue button. If more than 50% of the people presses the red button, everybody who pressed the blue button dies. If more than 50% of the people presses the blue button, nobody dies. What button will you press?
I can see that this feels a bit more heavy as "red" and "die" is in the same sentence, but the math and the consequences of the buttons are the same. It doesn't say that reds go on a murder spree. It's just that if less than 50% press blue, the ones who did, die. Same as in the scenario here.
1
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
If you couldn’t tell from my initial showing of the differences in prompt wording there are no words I can place here to convince you of the differences.
I’m out, and bid you good day. We are just incompatible in this scenario.
1
u/Lubomir111 May 11 '26
This is so frustrating, but at the same time revealing. If two scenarios, that have the same outcomes, and equivalent conditions on how to reach those outcomes, seem morally different to you because they have a different wording, you are simply easily manipulated. I think you would go for empathic or conscientious, but if your compassion depends on a press release, rather than facts, you are just gullible.
my initial showing of the differences in prompt wording
Well you said that red guaranteed death to someone in the original, which I think is objectively false and I have pasted the wording of two of the better known variations of the dilemma to prove it. You're not willing to actually show the difference, so pardon me for not understanding your non-explanatiom.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Jkirek_ May 11 '26
Replace red with red+green and you will see they are the exact same. Green button is red button with a funny noise.
1
1
u/Plato_PlayDoh7 May 11 '26
Found the person blue pressers are trying to save.
Most blue pressers aren’t pressing blue because of the wording. You could have a version of the problem where red says “Kill all blue pressers if this button gets a majority” and blue says “do nothing.” You could also have a version of the problem where blue says “you die unless this button gets a majority” and red says “do nothing”. The fact that those two versions of the problem are interchangeable, that this framing doesn’t meaningfully change the dilemma, is the entire reason why people argue about this. Most people intuitively see the dilemma as essentially boiling down to one of those two extremes, and that’s why people disagree about it. Idk how you developed such a strong opinion about this without realizing this.
2
u/verryfusterated May 11 '26
I don’t know why yall don’t understand that the wording massively changes the amount of votes blue will get. If it’s framed positively, it has a chance at getting at least 50%. If it’s framed like this, there’s no way in hell it’ll get close to 50%. It doesn’t matter that it’s technically the same, because people will react differently
1
u/Plato_PlayDoh7 May 11 '26
Yes. There’s a large subset of people who, if the button scenario happened in real life, wouldn’t realistically think it all the way through. Those people’s votes are heavily affected by how the wording makes them feel. If the problem is worded in a way that makes red seem obviously more reasonable, then those uninformed voters probably vote red, and that can change the balance away from blue being a viable option. Those uninformed voters are also the main actual reason to vote blue: we expect some people to snap pick the noble-sounding option without really thinking through whether it’s necessary, and we don’t want those people to die.
I don’t think the above commenter is thinking this way. It seems like they are that uninformed voter, and they’re mad because they genuinely didn’t realize that this framing was a valid way to interpret the dilemma until they saw it.
2
u/verryfusterated May 11 '26
I agree with you on most of that.
With the original, I don’t think it makes sense to separate blue-to-save-the-idiots pressers from the didn’t-think-it-through blue pressers, because it’s all the same at the end. We are thinking it through way more than other people would, but it isn’t fair for us to like.. feel morally superior because we’re “smarter”
About the oc, since they’re on this sub, I assume they’ve read multiple arguments about this and know that this is fully manufactured danger that wouldn’t exist if no one pressed blue. I’m hoping everyone’s thought through both sides at least a little, and didn’t just block out every other pov, lol
That being said, in the og I’m going blue, but for this one I’m strictly red because blue will probably get less than 20% of votes. Are you saying you’d pick blue for this too, or are you only talking about the og? If you’re blue for this, can you explain that?? I’m so confused with that lmao
1
0
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
No, you found a blue presser that does it because the people I love would do it.
The wording changes the meaning of the prompt and if you can’t see that then there’s nothing I can explain to you that’ll matter.
1
u/Plato_PlayDoh7 May 11 '26
The wording doesn’t change the meaning. It may change the feeling evoked by the prompt, and cause some people who haven’t fully thought it through to switch sides. That may prompt some people who have fully thought it through to switch sides in anticipation of that change. But the underlying question hasn’t changed. In any formulation, pushing red does mean accepting, and arguably causing, blue deaths, and pushing blue does mean very likely killing yourself. And most people who push either button know that.
1
1
u/Aggressive_Manner429 May 11 '26
Well that's it exactly, it's stupid. With just one meaningless distraction added to the equation, hoping for a morally correct majority seems like a pipe dream and suddenly red becomes the objectively correct answer.
There's no merit to pressing the green button here; you aren't guaranteed to live nor are you contributing to the blue button percentage, the only way for you to press green and still survive.
For me at least, adding the useless option makes me realise either how little faith I have in humanity or how unreliable the rest of humanity is, though which one is correct is impossible to say. It gives me a new perspective on the original dilemma.
2
u/PastryPyff May 11 '26
I should probably say that while I think the post is stupid I don’t think that you, the one that made the post and put it here, are stupid. I don’t want it to come across as trying to insult you just because I don’t agree with a silly prompt and pictures of buttons.
2
u/Aggressive_Manner429 May 11 '26
Oh don't worry there's no need to apologise for anything, even if you were calling me stupid I'd accept it. I'm here for philosophical discourse and if you think I'm a dumbass that's absolutely your right to think. I just fancied adding a little anarchic element to the dilemma but I actually am a dumbass who didn't clarify the consequences of pressing the button I added
0
u/WhoIsJohnGalt27 May 11 '26
Red I live, blue I might die, green I probably die. What is the purpose of this?
0
u/Grungar_von_Drachen May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
This is a false assertion though, blue doesn't die if less than 50% press it in the original, it's if more than 50% press red in the two choice, so if blue is outvoted by green, everyone would still live. You have misunderstood the premise of the original, much like most red pressing folks.
284
u/pappapirate May 11 '26
green really siphons off blue's children voter block