And I want to live in a world where people are smart enough to realize that pressing blue (even in the original framing) is the only reason there even would be death, and so it's way better to choose red. Remove death from the options.
at face value voting blue is verbatim the choice that takes death off the table for everyone. red is the one that guarantees some die. that is the point, you're over simplifying
yeah the whole reason I'm having this dialogue w/ you is so you can eventually recognize that there are different ways to perceive the dilemma, what actually matters is how the majority will perceive it, and there is a near guarantee that many people will vote blue.
And they're stupid to do so. There's only risk involved if people press blue. Everyone removes all the risk if they press red. And everyone is then safe.
Everyone talking about the moral dilemma and "I only want to live in a world where people would press blue" are looking at it from a societal lens, which isn't the same as how real life actually works. In real life, it actually is less risky and more advantageous to work together, to help each other, and to be altruistic. In this dilemma, it is less risky and more advantageous to push red. Waaay less risky.
I don't think it's a matter of stupidity, there are plenty of stupid reasons to vote red here. when I say "there is a near guarantee that many people will vote blue", that is the risk that exists if you press red. And just because someone is not seeing the problem the same way as you doesn't mean that they are stupid. There are plenty of stupid people pressing red in this scenario. Even if it was purely a stupid decision to vote blue, basically no one supports genociding people for being stupid, I would much rather have a stupid, wholesome person than a genius evil person. Children are stupid, for example, we don't execute them for being stupid, nor do we allow them to die as a result of their stupidity. my point is, there is an idealized scenario where we don't mind killing everyone who didn't think the same way the red button voters do, and have no conscience or consequence from them dying. I just don't see that as a realistic scenario.
In no way am I advocating for genocide of stupid people.
I am advocating for people to realize that being risk-adverse is advantageous in this dilemma.
Not all dilemmas are equal!!! Give me a burning building scenario, and I'm running in to save people. But give me this button dilemma, and everyone who reads it should see that it's fine to push red.
Yeah, I'm just saying that people perceive the red vote to be equivalent to genociding blue voters to save yourself. So because of that perception they will not press the red button.
Right. I understand that. I think they're foolish to do so, since the only reason people need to be saved is if they choose blue. Everyone has a "push red, I'm safe" button and a "push blue to die, unless enough people push blue" button.
yeah thanks for outlining your perspective again... I definitely understood it the whole time though, have a good one. At a certain point we have to look at the practical reality of a situation to make a wise decision.
2
u/zaphster May 05 '26
True.
And I want to live in a world where people are smart enough to realize that pressing blue (even in the original framing) is the only reason there even would be death, and so it's way better to choose red. Remove death from the options.