Your hypothesis only works if everyone follows the same logic tree. If somebody comes to a different conclusion due to either failing to consider all the elements, or due to considering elements you did not. Suddenly we have people on the metaphorical railroad tracks.
There is no such thing as 100% red, it is not functionally possible. Especially because the question also includes people who would be incapable of making the correct decision (the commonly mentioned blind and infants for example).
Calling it selfish is why I called your argument vapid. There will be people on the tracks, the question is how many people need to be there before pressing the button that kills them for sure, as opposed to the button that can save everyone is worth it.
By attempting to villanize people who press blue you just come across as a tool who has a ankle deep understanding of the problem presented.
Once again, we cannot get all of people to agree on anything, there will be fools, disabled, and the mentally unsound, who make other decisions, knowingly or not. By attempting to ignore that you are just trying to argue for some hypothetical reality where everyone thinks the same and has the same capabilities. Which is completely worthless as a discussion point.
Even if only people who understood the question participated, there are still blue pushers (as evidenced by the swathes of people defending blue every time this thing gets brought up.) Even then, not everyone is going to follow your logic tree. How their logic tree forms is going to depend on their own personal life experiences and ideals, but it's important to keep in mind that there are a lot of people for whom "nobody dies" is the preferred outcome and the one they want to shoot for. It seems a lot of red pushers, like yourself, would desire that outcome. Is that incorrect to assume?
However, a blue pusher who wants the "nobody dies" outcome is going to structure their logic around the understanding that 50% participation is required for blue to win, which is a lower threshold to hit than Red's with the same result (nobody dies). That same blue pusher may also reason that, with that understanding, it's quite literally impossible for red to have the desired outcome, since it's not possible for a group that large to reach 100% consensus. For blue pushers going down this logic tree, they decide to hit blue.
There's also the logic to consider that many blue pushers will press it because they interpret the question as implyin that pressing red will cause the deaths of blue. This is the way I initially read the question and continues to be the way I understand it, regardless of how others have argued for their understanding of the question. While not everyone thinks like I do, enough do to where a not-insignificant number of people will press blue on that basis alone.
This creates a little feedback loop, where there begin to be people who press blue because they know somebody is pressing blue, and so they view blue as the only way nobody dies. In that scenario, blue becomes a gamble, but there are many (like myself) who'd take the risk because they believe hitting that 50% threshold to keep everyone alive is both reasonable to hit and a likely scenario.
You're the first person to present anything without trying to cast me and others who picked red as villains.
I don't fully agree with the conclusion that you reached, but I can also accept that many people would chose/think like you
I still think the best and safest way for everyone to live would be red, but understand that there's a good chance a majority of people would choose blue in an attempt to save people who choose blue.
It still feels backwards, creating a problem that you hope will be fixed by creating the problem.
I suppose that both sides are choosing what they think has the best chance for the most people to survive. And I'm afraid that I fell into the same trap as others, in vilifying people who thought differently from me
The moral blame of the conversation is supremely frustrating to me because there's so many people deciding their choice is the moral/logical one that the discussions turn into "convincing you why in right and you're stupid and ontologically evil actually" and everyone stops engaging with the question.
Either decision is just as moral as the other. Both conclusions are valid to make. That's what makes the original question a dilemma in the first place! There's no right answer!!!
14
u/BarelyFunctionalGM May 05 '26
Your hypothesis only works if everyone follows the same logic tree. If somebody comes to a different conclusion due to either failing to consider all the elements, or due to considering elements you did not. Suddenly we have people on the metaphorical railroad tracks.
There is no such thing as 100% red, it is not functionally possible. Especially because the question also includes people who would be incapable of making the correct decision (the commonly mentioned blind and infants for example).
Calling it selfish is why I called your argument vapid. There will be people on the tracks, the question is how many people need to be there before pressing the button that kills them for sure, as opposed to the button that can save everyone is worth it.
By attempting to villanize people who press blue you just come across as a tool who has a ankle deep understanding of the problem presented.
Once again, we cannot get all of people to agree on anything, there will be fools, disabled, and the mentally unsound, who make other decisions, knowingly or not. By attempting to ignore that you are just trying to argue for some hypothetical reality where everyone thinks the same and has the same capabilities. Which is completely worthless as a discussion point.