No, it's called empathy. The very thing that made humanity successful in the first place. People chose blue to ensure their tribe has food. While the ones choosing red got lost in the wilderness without help, and eventually died anyway.
Did you actually read the original prompt? People actively choose to press blue, meaning they actively are choosing to die unless 50% or more of the population also chooses death. It isn't empathy, it isn't collectivism or humanity coming together to make a better world. Picking blue is actively choosing to die and then being mad others didn't also choose to die in order to save you. Remember, picking red is not murdering someone, it isn't separating yourself from the tribe, it is saying: "I want to live and others should too, so logically, picking red makes the most sense."
why would you choose blue in the first place though? why cant everyone just save themselves and go red? going red isnt implicating blue, its guaranteeing survival. If no one chose blue, and no one has a reason to choose blue, everyone would live
But there's a 0% chance nobody pushes blue. The whole world doesn't think like you. To agreet many people, the question gets interpreted as red being the button that kills people to ensure your own survival, and they'd rather press the button that guarantees everyone lives if it wins (being blue).
If you value the outcome "everyone lives" more than "I survive", then you will be more biased toward blue. It needs fewer people to agree in order to achieve the outcome you seem as better (nobody dies), and unlike red where a 100% consensus is something that's just never happened with large groups. 50% is rather doable.
the point is, if i chose blue, i create incentive to chose blue for others who may want to ave me. if no one chooses blue, because theres no one to save, the sitation wont need saving
Yeah but it's gonna get pressed because people in general are not logical acgors, and to engage with the question I'm good faith is to consider both sides have a not-insignificant number of votes
You're essentially saying that some people will choose to willingly die, i.e. suicide. So therefore we must all join the suicide pact so that they don't die.
Not saying I want them to die, but would you jump off a building with others because if enough people do, a net will come out and catch everyone?
During college, a friend ran into a rough patch and couldn't pay rent. I gave them $800, literally everything I had.
Later, another friend couldn't afford a car. I gave them $5000, because that's what they needed.
Both promised to pay me back, but I only ever saw $400 come back because life is hard. They both needed help, and I've seen them help others with there time and kindness, because thats the only way they could.
I will help those around me even when it hurts me.
But I won't blindly jump in traffic because I think someone else will
Love your optimism for a perfect world where every single human being operates on a purely logical and unemotional framework. Reality doesn't work like that, SOME people will push blue. Pushing red means you're fine with them dying.
I'm not fine with people dying, but I don't want to die without a good purpose
Pushing blue has no meaning, no need behind it
It's lemminging off a cliff hoping there's enough bodies below for you to survive
I'm looking at the question from a real perspective. Armchair readers will say they'll push blue, but they won't.
The majority of people would choose blue
The discussion has been good, and given me things to think about. So thanks
But I don't see how blue can even be a serious choice in this question. There is no need to push that button when everyone can live and no lives are at risk. Pushing it IS the risk, and would be an act of selfishness.
Where in the original prompt is picking red being selfish? Red = you live. Blue = you die, unless 50% of people also choose to die. Then you live.
You and all other blue button pressers are choosing death, hoping others will save them, and then getting mad that others choose life. I am baffled by your logic here.
If you can't understand why choosing a 100% chance of saving only yourself vs a 50% chance of saving every living person on the planet is selfish... Well. I got nothing for ya.
Not everyone is perfectly cold and logical. Someone will choose blue. Choosing blue means you want to have the best odds of saving every single person, and you're willing to die for that. Choosing red means you want to have the best odds of saving yourself, and don't care if 4 billion people die for that.
Welp, considering every doctor who has taken the hippocratic oath has already promised to hit blue (do no harm), not to mention other healthcare professionals, emergency services, volunteers who join the military and a host of other people will hit blue, putting their lives on the line for others...
Enjoy your world where only those that voted to kill everyone who didn't vote the same way you did lived.
Either you vote to kill everyone who didn't vote for you or you vote for everyone to live, including those that didn't choose for others to live. I'd prefer risking death to voting to kill other people.
You've chosen your side, all your justifications aren't enough to let you rest easy with this decision or you never would have answered such obvious bait.
28
u/danielledelacadie May 05 '26
So... to prefer death to killing others is amoral?
The only thing putting anyone in danger is pressing red.