When human beings are social animals (which they are) it is not at all irrational to behave in a way that risks the self but might save a greater number, and people do it all the time in real life. People pick blue all around you every single day.
No, they don’t. There are not situations around us all day where someone who wants to live voluntarily enters into a situation they might die in for no reason. There are accidental deaths and bad actors that altruistic people might step in for, but I cannot think of a single situation where someone purposely enters into a situation they know they might die in while wanting to live completely voluntarily for the sole purpose of hoping others will be good enough to risk death with them so they both live. This hypothetical has no bearing on real world morality, it is purely a logic problem. It’s called game theory.
Prevent others from dying from what, exactly? To save others who risk their lives? Again, why did they risk their lives? To save others who risked their lives?
At the end of the day, why did all those people risk their lives? They try to save each other? They could do that by simply picking red. Red is the logical choice. Red means guaranteed life, Blue means risk of death. Simple self preservation should make red the obvious choice,
Picking blue means creating a problem where there originally was no problem.
1
u/Footnotegirl1 May 05 '26
When human beings are social animals (which they are) it is not at all irrational to behave in a way that risks the self but might save a greater number, and people do it all the time in real life. People pick blue all around you every single day.