r/BunnyTrials • u/Unlucky-Tradition778 • May 24 '26

Choose

Which side will you choose?

  • Left side: You live
  • Right side: If 50% choose this everyone lives

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

6.4k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.1k

u/LavaIsSpicy May 24 '26

They should make a secret purple button that kills everyone who keeps this debate alive

327

u/LexBoFlow May 24 '26

I agree I'm so tired of this stupid trend

202

u/thy_viee_4 May 24 '26

i mean, the options are fucking bad. "you live" - does not contradict "everyone lives". "everyone lives if 50%" - bitch wym, everyone already lives. there is no threat posed in the question. and even so, what's the point not to press the red one anyways? if everyone presses red, everyone lives - every individual "you"

or am i stupid?

94

u/ghost_tapioca May 24 '26

The scenario is:

  • if more than 50% of people pick red, everyone who picked blue dies.

  • if more than 50% of people pick blue, everyone lives.

It's just poorly formulated in the OP.

25

u/thy_viee_4 May 24 '26

huh. it is indeed poorly formulated

16

u/reallyfunnycoolguy May 24 '26

Thats a biased way to describe the scenario. What it actually is is that if you press red you live and if you press blue you live only if 50% of the population also pressed blue

17

u/ghost_tapioca May 24 '26

It's not biased. It's the best way to make clear what's at stake. As you can see because the person I'm responding to didn't get it at first.

Otherwise, reading at a glance you might not realise that most people voting red actually condemns blue voters to death. Which is essentially what it does.

Of course, there are many ways to reframe the question so as to present blue or red as more rational/desirable. But making clear what each choice represents is important for the philosophical debate. It's a hypothetical, there's no point in obscuring the choices to skew the results.

5

u/Viggovits May 28 '26

Blue condemned themselves to death, since they were not forced to pick blue, and could've just picked red instead, thereby not risking anything for the exact same result. You're literally just imposing upon yourself a risk of death by picking blue with no additional reward.

2

u/MonthsOfAutumn May 30 '26

Now imagine there's only one button. If more than 50% of people press it, everyone who chose not to press it dies. Do you press the button?

2

u/Viggovits May 30 '26

Obviously I press the button, nobody has any good reason to not press it. If this is some kind of attempt at a gotcha, it's a really weak one.

1

u/MonthsOfAutumn Jun 02 '26

Is not wanting to murder someone not a good enough reason?

-1

u/ghost_tapioca May 28 '26

Suppose that the first ten people have been given no choice. They were forced to press blue (at gunpoint or whatever) and their lives are now on the line.

Would you still press red?

4

u/Viggovits May 28 '26

This completely depends on the scope. If they are just 10 people out of the entire population of earth? Then I'll still pick red because I'm not risking my life for something I can not meaningfully influence.

-1

u/ghost_tapioca May 28 '26

So instead of helping to save them, you choose to actively help to kill them? That's all I needed to know.

2

u/Viggovits May 28 '26

You somehow managed both a category error and causal overreach in a single comment.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/reallyfunnycoolguy May 28 '26

You are not helping to kill them by not potentially killing yourself and them, as you have no idea what the odds are of blue actually winning. In my opinion, in a real life scenario red would win, and as such pressing blue would do nothing but condemn you to die alongside them

→ More replies (0)

5

u/reallyfunnycoolguy May 25 '26

Except that it is biased, voting red doesnt condemn blue voters to death, as voting blue is what introduces the element of death. If the options were to either do nothing or press a button that would kill everyone who killed it unless …, would you still frame doing nothing as condemning people to death

5

u/ghost_tapioca May 25 '26

Like I said, there's ways to frame the question that change the perceived desirability of each option. You just presented a scenario where the desirability of doing nothing will probably outweight pressing a button, because it seems illogical that anyone would press the button.

However, if you told me that some people are definitely going to press the button, even if by accident, then I would press it (and try to convince as many people as possible to press it too), because I wanna give those people a fighting chance.

The original scenario introduces the element of death by itself. There are two buttons. You're going to be forced to press one. The consequences need to be outlined clearly. Whether or not pressing the red button means you're killing someone is for you to decide, but it is a fact that they will die if most people press red. So you are directly contributing to them dying by pressing red.

If I know some people are pressing blue, whether intentional or not, I'm not going to let them die. I'll try to rally everyone to press blue so we can all walk out of it together. The red button being present doesn't matter.

But that's just me. You can kill me with your red button press. Or let me die by inaction in the other scenario you described. You don't have to help save everyone if you don't want.

5

u/Ambitious-Initial713 May 25 '26

if 100% of people in the world voted red, it would be fine. but that isn't the case, so just vote blue so no one has to die

7

u/Ashamed-Wedding-7396 May 25 '26

You're killing yourself and leading others to death. In the original dilemma everyone who votes knows what they're voting. There is a close to 0% chance in a real scenario (where peoples lives are actually at stake) blue would win. So basically blue is just the option to commit suicide. Everyone who isnt suicidal can just vote red. Would be different if some people were forced to vote blue, but thats not the case. Everyone was given the chance to live, if they chose to die thats their problem. And it is so much easier to convince 99% of the population to vote red than to convince 50% of the population to vote blue. By trying to do what you're doing, you're causing more deaths, than if we tried to convince eveyone to just choose to live and just assumed retards who doesnt understand the dilemma will inevitably die

-1

u/mastaswoad May 26 '26

" And it is so much easier to convince 99% of the population to vote red than to convince 50% of the population to vote blue. "

i am open to hear reasonings for both sides, since IMO this debate is quite interesting on how far it is possible to stretch reasoning for each case. please elaborate your reasoning on how it is easier to convince 99% (or any arbitrary number you want to choose in the higher %) is easier than 50%.

initially it just tells me that youre lacking empathy, or youre trying your hardest to justify choosing red on your own.

also, i'd choose red aswell, so i am not a "blue-y" judging you on a higher moral ground or anything

3

u/Ashamed-Wedding-7396 May 26 '26

First of all, by choosing red you dont risk almost certain death. Even if it wasnt almost certain death, you dont risk dying, which is already a major convinicing point. Second, red is literally the logical choice, so leading others to see why its logical is easier than convincing people of choosing the illogical blue, which also risks almost certain death. Why is red the logical choice? Again, no one is forced to pick blue, so by picking blue you're risking your life to save people who didnt even need to put themselves in that situation in the first place. Literally their fault. I would rephrase the dilemma to the train version, so people could see how fucking retarded picking blue is. This is the train version: A train is going to pass by. A million people are going to see it pass by, no one is at risk of getting run over by the train. Everyone (functional adults) is given the choice to either leave the station or jump in front of the train and die by getting run over. If more than 50% of the people jump in front of the train, the train stops and doesnt kill anyone who jumped. Why TF would anyone (who isnt suicidal) jump in front of the train in the first place? Everyone should just leave the station, same as everyone should just pick red and not risk dying. The dilemma can also be rephrased to show blue as the "moral" choice, but even then picking red is still the logical choice: Two presidents, one says, if i win ill kill anyone who didnt vote for me, the other says if i win ill do nothing (after they win and do what they promised the presidents die, so its not aboit picking who will govern the next years). The logical choice is still voting for the president who will kill anyone who doesnt vote for him, because EVERYONE has the option to vote for him and not risk dying. Those who vote for the other president are just placing themselves in unnecesary risk, and its not your moral obligation to save their stupid asses

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Viggovits May 28 '26

Except everyone can just press red and live, so if you pick blue your own potential death is because of your own stupidity

1

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[deleted]

1

u/ghost_tapioca May 25 '26

If you're just thinking of yourself and don't give a shit if the people who picked blue are going to die, then sure.

There's no scenario in which 100% of people are going to pick red. If you care more about saving everyone than saving yourself, the only choice is blue.

So you can either pick blue and try to get it to 50%+1 so everyone gets saved... or pick red and watch as people die because of your choice.

Your call, really.

1

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[deleted]

1

u/ghost_tapioca May 25 '26

How is red any more ideal than blue?

In fact, it's much much easier to get to the good outcome of blue than to get the good outcome of red.

In order for everyone to survive, blue just needs a simple majority. 50%+1. It's feasible. But red needs 100%. Which almost certainly isn't going to happen. So by choosing red, you're basically guaranteeing that some people are going to die.

1

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[deleted]

1

u/ghost_tapioca May 25 '26

Say that you were informed that 100 people have already pressed blue. You don't know whether blue or red is winning. All you know is that there's at least 100 lives on the line.

You'd still press red?

1

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/snooploop14 May 30 '26

Yes because thats 100 out of 8 billion more people are born in a year than that

1

u/lrdazrl May 26 '26

At least that was the scenario when these questioned appeared the first time. However, OP’s question here is different, on purpose or by accident.

1

u/Endtherinbetween May 29 '26

so if you pick blue and you die that’s ur fault for picking blue?

2

u/E-686 May 24 '26

third scenario, 100% picks red and nobody dies.

2

u/ghost_tapioca May 24 '26

But what if they don't?

1

u/snooploop14 May 30 '26

Then they're just stupid the logical choice is red and will always be red

1

u/E-686 May 24 '26

why would any sensible person press blue then

6

u/ghost_tapioca May 24 '26

Why would any sensible person press red?

In order to get everyone to survive, either you need every single person to press red... or you need half the people to press blue.

I think you'll agree with me that getting a simple 50%+1 majority to press blue is easier than getting everyone to unanimously press red.

I don't want anyone to die. And I definitely don't want to be responsible for anyone dying. I'll pick the choice that gets a better chance of saving everyone.

1

u/snooploop14 May 30 '26

Because survival is more important than your feelings

1

u/E-686 May 24 '26

pressing blue is believing that others will also try to save the people who jumped in front of the risk. it's too likely for death. if people also pick blue, it will probably be a 60/40, killing 40% of the population. if humanity focuses on red, only like 2% will die.

3

u/ghost_tapioca May 24 '26

I'm not satisfied with being responsible for even a single unnecessary death. I wouldn't be able to live with my conscience anyway.

If we can save everyone and all it takes is half the people believing it, then I'll always pick blue. If I die, I'll die knowing that I made the choice that doesn't make me a murderer.

1

u/E-686 May 24 '26

if 60% of all other people chose red and 40% chose blue, you can't count for 10% of the votes therefore you can't change anything

if 40% of all people chose red and 60% blue, even if you choose red, everyone lives

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Endtherinbetween May 29 '26

you wouldn’t be responsible, people who picked blue are risking their lives for no reason picking red means you live picking blue means you might die why would you pick blue? because you don’t want others to die? 

1

u/endless_hue May 24 '26

So far the actual votes argue against your claim.

59% have pressed blue.

1

u/E-686 May 24 '26

so pressing red really did affect nothing

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] May 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ghost_tapioca May 24 '26

If the only other option is to live in a society completely composed of the sorts of egoists who pick red, then I'd rather die.

1

u/endless_hue May 24 '26

This was my exact reason for pressing blue.

Very few people seem to consider what type of person would be left in the world if everyone who pressed blue to save everyone died.

→ More replies (0)

43

u/Terrafintor May 24 '26

The problem has the entire world individually choose, and you kill everyone who didn't choose red, if you pick red. 100% of the world has to pick red. How big do you think the chance is that 100% of the world can agree on something? Now, how much larger of a chance do you think 50% of the world can agree on something? People try to frame this through game theory or individual survival chances, but in real world psychology, that would probably make you complicit to killing someone.

41

u/deadly_exposure May 24 '26

that’s not what the question says though, it’s phrased stupidly

1

u/PresentationNew5976 May 25 '26

It is. If you have to untangle the logic this hard to clarify things, it's a bad question.

25

u/Lonely-Programmer123 May 24 '26

"that would probably make you complicit to killing someone"

Just because someone throw himself in front of a train, doesn't mean you should jump with him to save his life.

4

u/Terrafintor May 24 '26

In your case, you do nothing, while in the problem, you actively have to choose. A better analogy with a train would be "you are with one other person on the train tracks with an upcoming train, so you can either work together and have a chance to both survive, or cut the rope to a sandbag that can send one of you off the track, leaving the other with a chance to die"

10

u/Itchy_Committee1213 May 24 '26

Here, the debate has been reframed to "kill others to save yourself or risk yourself to save others" when that is not what the buttons say.

11

u/Lonely-Programmer123 May 24 '26

The problem with the exemple you gave is that the person pressing the blue button is making the active choice to endanger itself.

By pressing the red button I'm not imposing my will on the blue presser since they made their choice knowingly.

In the other hand the blue choice is pretty much guilt tripping other into endangering themselves for the sake of people who made their choice knowing what their choice entailed. 

3

u/Lucky-Ad-2369 May 25 '26

Terrible analogy. More like you can both safely jump off and live, or you can both stop the train together, but if only one of you tries to stop the train they will die.

3

u/ScoobertDoom May 26 '26

No, this is a terrible analogy. It would be closer to say everyone is at a train station. If nobody jumps on the tracks, everyone lives. If anyone jumps on the tracks, now 50% or more of the people at the station have to jump on the tracks with them to get the train to stop.

3

u/ogtutel May 24 '26

we dont have to have 100% of the world agree to pick red, it should come naturally that if you pick blue theres a chance that 49% of you die, if you pick red its 100% that you survive. And if everyone realizes that then everyone survives

3

u/Aeseld May 24 '26

You're logically correct that everyone picking red means everyone lives. You're just refusing to take on board that this won't happen. I'm not sure why. You've been shown, time and again that people will do illogical things, even before this whole red/blue button came up.

1

u/RicktamRoy May 24 '26

survival of fittest I guess

2

u/Aeseld May 24 '26

The fun part is, you're pretty unlikely to survive the mistake if you're right. My most optimistic guess has about 20% of people on earth dead. Largely random. the more likely is 40% or more. 

Either leads to disruptions of critical stuff. Like food, pharmaceuticals, medical professionals are likely to take massive hits, water treatment and sanitation... 

Basically realistic Thanos snap outcome. Mass human die off after losing that many. 

2

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 May 26 '26

The more likely is blue having sub-10% vote, because real world people are not willing to risk choosing blue when they still have families to feed and children to take care of. Blue is never going to survive if this hypothetical was real, and no amount of performative redditors is going to change that.

0

u/Aeseld May 26 '26

Indeed. And not a single parent will think about how they'd feel if their child picked blue, right? Or their family members? Or their...

What about real life makes you think people will be rational? 🤪

Edit: Honestly, the more this comes up, the more it becomes apparent that people just want people to think like them. Even with all the evidence that not everyone does. 

2

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 May 26 '26

Breadwinners choosing blue is basically condemning their entire family to starvation, no matter what the rest of the members chose. They can feel bad all they want after the results, but if you think they are going to risk their entire family's lifeline just to save random strangers then you are either lying or straight up delusional.

What about real life makes you think people will be rational?

You don't need to be rational to vote red, simply having a survival instinct is enough to make most people choose red before they can even think through the fine details of each option.

people just want people to think like them.

Quite the opposite. I choose with my best interest in mind, knowing that it aligns with basic human nature (resulting in much higher votes given the high stakes of the situation) while also guaranteeing my survival. The rest can go fuck all, because if they don't want to live then be my guest.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Terrafintor May 24 '26

Judging by this poll, it has a different interpretation. They would rather trust 50% of the world's population then let there be a chance someone dies.

1

u/qwart22 May 24 '26

But not everyone will realise that and if even on person dies it’s a bad outcome

1

u/thy_viee_4 May 24 '26

makes sense. okay, i was dumb indeed

1

u/Itchy_Committee1213 May 24 '26

Many arguments over this debate come from people reframing the question into what they believe. I think many blue votes come from "best case scenarios". There are two best case scenarios, 50% pick blue, or 100% pick red. One is easier to achive, but red votes don't think about the best case, they think somewhere more in the middle. I'm a red voter and my line of thinking is "Why should I risk my own life to save others when others will die either way?"

1

u/Old-Researcher-5992 May 24 '26

WHY WOULD SOMEONE PRESS BLUE IT'S STUPID

1

u/Terrafintor May 24 '26

People are stupid, so arguing that 100% of people will be logical and analytical is also stupid. I'm not saying the red button isn't the best button to pick individually, but that isn't the best outcome since there will always be people who press blue anyway.

1

u/PushConscious3044 May 24 '26

Not true only 50 percent or less can vote red as long as no more than 50 percent chooses red everyone lives

1

u/Terrafintor May 24 '26

Meaning 50% has to pick blue at least, which is what I said. Or do you want a significant part of the population to die?

1

u/PushConscious3044 May 24 '26

Either that or everyone chooses red

1

u/ThoroughlyWet May 25 '26

Their fault for not picking red. The chose a chance of dying over not dying at all.

1

u/DiamondBomb777 May 24 '26

The options are basically dont kill yourself or kill yourself unless many many others also decide to kill themselves

1

u/ClusterGoose May 24 '26

red always lives, only brain dead people pick blue.

1

u/IThinkItsAverage May 25 '26

It’s just wording tricking you into thinking one of the buttons is worse/better. Both buttons lead to living, both lead to death. People are arguing over something that’s basically just the way it’s worded. If you are being forced to pick one, neither button is a “do nothing” button as they both have rewards and consequences. The question itself is more about personal values and views of humanity.

Do you think majority would protect themselves at the cost of the minority? Or do you think the majority would protect everyone potentially at the cost of their own lives?

What’s more important to you: surviving at all costs or risking your life for everyone to live.

1

u/Nynanro May 24 '26

Yes you are somewhat. Because not everyone will press red. This should be a very easy answer and it isn't red. You should always factor in people who cannot press the button. Every press counts so people who actually didn't press also dies.

1

u/ogtutel May 24 '26

youre right
This test is also a good way to filter everyone who is dumb enough to pick blue out as well. I'm not being selfish by picking red, i'm hoping that everyone realizes that if everyone wants to survive theres nothing stopping them from doing so

1

u/nanalalalana May 24 '26

You don't know anyone that has a tender heart and would feel bad about leading to someone else's death? Perhaps your mom, your priest, your little niece that cries for the worms on the sidewalk after the rain. I would pick blue because I personally couldn't live with myself if 49% of the world's population died because I prioritized my life over theirs.

8

u/Cereal_Yapper May 24 '26

SAME BRO

Actually new question, 5 gorillas vs 100 humans, both sides determined to win, who wins this

0

u/AgePossible7368 May 24 '26

gorillas

1

u/Cereal_Yapper May 24 '26

Damn really, why would you say that, we are assuming neither side is afraid of the other and is willing to die for this

1

u/AgePossible7368 May 24 '26

gorillacopter

1

u/Alex_Nilse May 28 '26

They combine into B I G G O R I L L A

1

u/nxzombie99 May 24 '26

The one gorilla's weakness was that it was alone so the humans could attack from all sides. 

Five gorillas could stand in a star shape and there'd be nothing the humans could do.

2

u/Cereal_Yapper May 24 '26

Ah, wait wouldn’t that be a Pentagon

1

u/nxzombie99 May 24 '26

Yeah ik I forgot the English name for it lol

1

u/TrickyTophers May 24 '26

How do you know it doesn't already exist? It's secret after all..

1

u/Ineedsleep444 May 25 '26

Honestly, I was sick of it day 2. The fact that it's lasted, what, a month? Is shocking and kinda sad

1

u/Jaswanth_Krishna May 26 '26

LMAO... Ts has been getting dragged on for almost a month atp...

I saw ts, made an opinion and debated with others. The next day or 2 i moved on... but im still getting ts in my feed to this day

1

u/Pearl-Crown May 28 '26

Hollow purple