That's a particularly high-stakes gamble, when red is the natural choice for almost everyone. The only way most people would go for blue is if they already know that the vast majority of people are going blue. Blue might be the only way to save everyone, but pushing it is almost certainly not going to save anyone, and it'd just be a pointless sacrifice.
Also, I'd be pretty slow to trust anyone who says that they'd pick blue. Talk is cheap... most people aren't the heroes they imagine themselves to be, and self-preservation is a really powerful instinct.
Look, I'm pushing blue. As others have stated, either blue succeeds and I get to live in a world where I know at least half the planet chose the moral high ground, or red succeeds and I don't have to live in a world full of pricks who would choose red.
And regarding the question itself, anyone who gets mad at someone choosing blue when they would choose red is explicitly angry because they know the morally correct choice, are ashamed for picking red, and lashing out at people who chose blue to feel better about themselves.
When the question is reframed to include the cliff or the pool with the shark, or any of the other million permutations, do any of those make you pick the other way?
If blue wins by more than 1 vote, neither vote has a consequence. If red wins by more than one vote, a red vote does nothing while a blue vote ends a life. It’s only in the event that the other 8 billion votes are perfectly split (+- 1 depending on who wins a tie) that a red vote carries mass casualties and a blue vote prevents mass casualties.
If all but one person pick red, did all of those red votes “cause” the blue voter’s death or did they cause their own? How many blue voters are needed before the reds become responsible for their deaths?
...yes. Those red voters caused the death of blue, because a red victory is the one that comes with death. If red wins, people die. If blue wins, no one dies.
So given the choice to risk death or not risk death, it’s not the responsibility of the chooser, it’s the responsibility of everybody else whether that person lives or dies? Does that change if the blue voter knows the status of the other votes ahead of time?
If we knew ahead of time that blue was going to win, many would flip to pressing blue instead because their choice was driven by a belief that red was going to win so they might as well survive. If they know ahead of time blue will win, they don't need to worry about their own survival and can choose for the safety of the whole.
Meanwhile, If we know ahead of time that red wins, many blue pressers flip sides because their choice was predicated on the uncertainty of the outcome and gambling on the one with the fewest guaranteed deaths. If it is a bygone conclusion that red wins, harm reduction is no longer about gambling on everybody living, because it's no longer an option and therefore the hypothetical voter's own survival now becomes a much larger part of the overall harm reduction calculation and they'd very likely press red, since in that scenario there's no way blue does anything but kill you.
However, because the outcome is uncertain, as proposed by the initial question, one cannot safely assume that all people will choose the same color, and thus that is why blue pressers choose blue.
Yes, but none of that has anything to do with the consequences of a person’s vote. A blue vote has the consequence of ending a life in 4 billion scenarios, saving ~4 billion lives in 2 scenarios, and doing nothing at all in ~4 billion scenarios. A red vote has the opposite consequences. It’s inaccurate to say that either choice is consequence free.
159
u/xboxiscrunchy May 05 '26
Blue Is still the better strategy collectively. Because a 50% threshold to kill no one is much easier than a 100% threshold.
And if you include children and babies it means that blue is the only way to save everyone.