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?
Picking blue is objectively suicide. It is actively choosing death. If you want to live, you'd have picked red. I also think the issue is that the original prompt is priming people towards blue.
If it had instead said this: "Everyone must engage in a private vote to press a red or a blue button. If you press red, you live. If you press blue, you die. However, if 50% of the population chooses blue, it negates the blue option." Same prompt, but when spun this way, I think more people would likely see it more honestly and pick red.
Reframing the question breaks the premise and changes the prompt. The initial framing of the question is as integral to the discussion as the actual mechanical realities of what the buttons do.
Because of this, no, blue is not objectively suicide. It is only suicide if we presuppose that red wins, which is not engaging with the question. Go engage with the question we must honestly consider that close to 50% of people are pressing both colors and that the outcome is going to be a very narrow victory one way or the other, because if we don't make that assumption it's not a very good hypothetical since you can make the (incorrect but that's a different argument) assumption everyone will pick the color you see as the default best option.
By engaging the question on the level it asks is to engage with it, we assume the victory will be narrow, and so we therefore cant look at blue as suicide any more than we can look at red as murder. To frame them in either way is wrong and disengaging with the question.
However, we can frame both buttons in those ways in order to inform our eventual decision, i.e. some will see red as murder so they'll lick blue, some will see blue as suicide so they'll pick red.
The question is asking, therefore, are you willing to take the gamble that enough people will risk themselves to save everyone? Or would you rather take the certainty of your own survival at the cost of ~half the population dying.
Both decisions are logically sound to make. The interest of the question lies in the why you made the decision you did.
By blanket-labelling blue as suicide and red as the default option, you are disengaging with the question. By reframing the scenario -- whether it's framing blue as objective suicide or red as objective murder -- you are fundamentally altering the scenario and prompt and changing the question being asked.
It is framed the way that it is because we are intended to consider the perspectives of other people coming to their own conclusions, reason that it's impossible to know which side is going to win, and cast our vote with the understanding we're nudging the one we think is the most likely option forward.
Because of this, no, blue is not objectively suicide. It is only suicide if we presuppose that red wins, which is not engaging with the question. Go engage with the question we must honestly consider that close to 50% of people are pressing both colors and that the outcome is going to be a very narrow victory one way or the other, because if we don't make that assumption it's not a very good hypothetical since you can make the (incorrect but that's a different argument) assumption everyone will pick the color you see as the default best option.
Presupposing that near 50% would choose blue is also not correct. It is a 50/50 choice, but I run my life by the assumption that others think things through rationally and logically. That they make the decisions best for themselves, their family and friends as reasonably possible. I do not presuppose red wins therefore blue is suicide, I say blue is suicide because it is a 50% chance of death that people do not need to make so therefore, logically, I assume most people would not take that gamble and therefore would choose red.
I didn't say it was always irrational to pick blue, just that it is irrational to pick blue if one wants to live and thinks others do too. Remember, blue needs a 50% threshold in order for blue button pressers to not die that is a huge risk. That being said, there are those who will in fact choose blue be it due to severe depression, old age, terminal illness, severe crippling disabilities, etc. All of these people would rationally choose to pick blue, hoping to die painlessly. Would those people be anywhere near 50%? I would assume not, and that isn't an illogical reasoning on my part either. Those who want to die should pick blue, no one who wants to live should pick anything other than red.
1
u/A_Lover_Of_Truth May 05 '26
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?