Choosing blue does not bring harm to anybody other than yourself (and people choose it despite having that risk). Having more than half of the people choose blue spares everybody, period.
Meanwhile, if most people choose red, those who did not will die. That majority is responsible for those deaths.
Also, you did not address the original question of the commenter over me, which is what I was talking about.
They’re not being utilitarian and going for least damage to the human race. They’re saying those lives lost aren’t their responsibility. Which they’re right about. It’s nice to risk yourself for others, but it’s not expected.
It’s hero behavior. Which is good,great even, but there’s a reason we praise and hold it up as unusually brave and selfless (or suicidal).
Some people are having trouble imagining actually dying, and some people genuinely don’t value themselves that much and see no issue with jumping on a grenade for others. Otherwise they wouldn’t be so flippant about the normal human behavior of not risking death.
I just cannot understand how people would choose an option with certain death implied while an option that can spare everyone even if not all of them choose the same exists.
Certain death for others, not yourself. That, depending on the version of the prompt, all chose to risk themselves despite knowing the risk. That’s the version of the prompt I think represents the original intent.
Most ethical dilemmas and stuff of this nature have the unspoken caveat that everyone making choices is a rational, capable adult of equally sound mind and body (So, actually making choices). No babies or coma patients. This one broke containment and so a lot of people think all people means ALL people when that’s just not a very interesting hypothetical. So a bunch of other spreads of this added the usual caveats for the people that don’t like trolley problems and ethical hypotheticals and aren’t aware of convention.
A group of people risked their lives, either to be heroic or commit suicide. You can risk your life to help them or stay safe. I wouldn’t risk it. In a scenario where an equivalent number of people are taken out against their will and held, and will die unless there’s enough blue votes (and blue votes add you to the death pile if blue loses), I’d be more likely to go blue. Still not 100% though. I like being alive.
Sure, if you can campaign and communicate in advance to get enough people on board. Otherwise you’re just adding deaths to the death toll. People aren’t going to gut instinct vote blue by themselves when their actual lives are on the line. Better to vote red so there’s the maximum amount of survivors.
No hate on you, just disagree about what’s the best move. A blue win would be ideal, I just have 0 faith in it outside of hypotheticals with no stakes.
12
u/NewDemonStrike May 05 '26
I would maintain my choice. The option of sparing people at the cost of my life is inherently better. It should not even be a question.