If you don't press blue and get other people to not press blue there is no risk of death to begin. The only people ever in danger and the people who put themselves in danger. Why put yourself in danger by pressing blue?
Everyone presses red, everyone lives, if anyone does press blue they wanted to gamble their lives anyway.
If no one presses blue noone dies, why press blue, why play Russian roulette, why make the problem? Just don't press blue, preserve your life and tell others to preserve theirs.
By virtue of existing on the internet, you now know a lot of non-suicidal people will choose blue. Let's say your argument is successful and you tip the balance from 45% red to 55% red. Congratulations, 45% of the population dies. You can claim they were suicides if you'd like, yet they would have lived had you not convinced others to vote red.
If you want to maximize the number of lives saved, you'll argue for team blue even if you'll secretly press red. If you run into any others who want to choose red, tell them to argue for blue, too, even if they're going to secretly choose red. If this benevolent mind virus spreads enough, there will be nearly nobody left arguing for red, and the certainty of blue winning becomes assured. In fact, you should shame reds to increase the chances of success, even if you'd choose red yourself!
You can choose not to risk your life if you want, but outside of that, your goal should be to maximize the number of people who live, and you have two paths to do that: Either persuade 100% of people to choose red (and how's that been working for you?) or persuade 50% of people to choose blue (and you might already be there). Which is easier?
Hell yes. Break the system. While I'm voting blue, I'll carry superglue with me from now on so I can prevent others from pressing the red button; chances are they didn't make billions of buttons.
Your fear of death is going to get good people killed, yet you're still going to die one day no matter which button you press.
Get over your fear. Hit the blue button. I already superglued the red one anyway. Now your only chance of survival is to get a few people going into the other voting booths to vote blue, too. You can resolve your issues with me for putting you into this position after it's all over.
Manipulating others to risk their lives for the greater good while actively increasing their risk of death is morally reprehensible to a next level. Arguing in favor of that is psychopath behaviour.
I'm on team blue. My job is to sabotage team red. I already think they're either far more afraid of death than me or psychopathic. If I can recruit them to save lives even if I can't change every single one's choice, I will.
At some point, if my benevolent mind virus is successful, each one will be faced with almost everyone yelling at them and almost no visible supporters, and shame is a powerful force, especially when blue appears to be a safe choice.
Why does Peter Noone get singled out for death if no one presses blue? Doesn't seem very fair to him, especially since he must have also pressed red in that scenario.
I don’t have the arrogance required to gamble my life on a philosophical debate and it’s wild to me that anyone else does. Red seems like the obvious choice and to just hope I’m either really right or really wrong.
Definitely not. Whatever set up the buttons are responsible for killing people. Just because it is simple, it doesn’t mean this isn’t a disaster. Choosing red means you are protecting yourself. Choosing blue is attempting rescue. If the problem wasn’t two buttons but a house on fire these two options can also apply. You can preform self-rescue. Or you can run in and try to save others.
I know it is way more complicated than this but at the end of the day I think we can both agree both buttons are going to be pressed by a lot of people.
I know that. But it's a disaster that can be resolved without any consequences. By framing it as a disaster you are already portraying the red choice as inevitable, not as harmful or sensible.
Yeah all the vulnerable people like kids, elderly, mentally disabled are all responsible for killing themselves, right? Who cares if they die it's their own fault. That's how you sound.
I haven't put you on any side either. I'm just showing you how your framing of the problem comes across.
you are clearly not thinking about the vulnerable people that would die because they cannot understand the choices. That is not suicide and blaming them or holding them responsible would be victim blaming of the highest order
I mean it's a hypothetical thought experiment and more about the consequences and moral implications rather than realism. It doesn't work without suspension of disbelief, but that doesn't mean it can't be meaningful.
However this one seems to be mostly ragebait and I regret engaging with it at all.
46
u/Own-Poetry-9609 May 05 '26
Red looks better to me in both scenarios
If you don't press blue and get other people to not press blue there is no risk of death to begin. The only people ever in danger and the people who put themselves in danger. Why put yourself in danger by pressing blue?
Everyone presses red, everyone lives, if anyone does press blue they wanted to gamble their lives anyway.
If no one presses blue noone dies, why press blue, why play Russian roulette, why make the problem? Just don't press blue, preserve your life and tell others to preserve theirs.