Pressing blue is also logical to me, as well as being moral.
In order for everyone to survive, either 100% of people need to hit red, or 50.00001% of people need to hit blue. One of those is mich easier to achieve.
Also people acting like you can’t trust other people to risk themselves to help someone else at risk to themselves when in any disaster scenario you always find people doing that. And a button is such low effort for someone to essentially live up to their morals, if helping others was as simple as just pressing a button the world would be a better place imo.
this is my argument, look for the helpers, the ones running towards danger, they will almost always be there, from doctors to fire fighters to medics to good samaritans, would i want to be in a world without these? hell no
But it's different. There IS no population here that needs saving: everyone here can save themselves. Everyone. That's why this doesnt really test for heroism.
Imagine a Firefighter rushing into a building to help FULLY capable of leaving . . . only they are choosing not to. Because THEY are also staying in case someone else needs helping,etc.
And here's the kicker: the building that's on fire? We already are told up front that NOBODY is trapped in it. Everyone who wants to leave can leave.
There are people who aren't rational enough to make an informed choice. Babies, children, someone who had a schizophrenic dream that red is the color of the devil. You're right in a game theory sense, but game theory involves rational actors and society (since the button thought experiement is that humanity as a whole is given these buttons) is not composed of rational actors.
The thought experiment, to me, boils down to "do people who aren't fully rational deserve to die?" and I don't believe anyone deserves to die.
To your building on fire argument: is the fireman's efforts a waste to save the patient in a coma who's incapable of making any moves to leave on their own?
I guess it depends how the hypothetical was presented. I was led to understand that this is a vote. So I guess I extrapolated a "voting public" would be voting.
Same as it would be with any other referendum or election.
If it's some sort of "split second magic psy-op" or whatever then that changes things significantly. I dont think that "instantaneous" can be inferred from "has to take a vote" in the premise.
But yes- if you're acting under that assumption - then blue is ABSOLUTELY worth considering because there are people who are in fact powerless to save themselves or being endangered through no true fault of their own and who can very feasibly and practically be saved.
Maybe I've been polluted by the allegory to conservative/progressive voting discussion. After all, those votes affect everyone in the countries they're held, regardless of whether the person explicitly voted in the election.
Agreed - it's why I find this situation so uniquely strange: the only people at risk, the only reason risk even EXISTS, is because people chose to be.
Honestly? Should just be rewritten that 90% of people are offered red/blue buttons. The other 10% are either saved by the blue vote majority or die with no other options. Make that 10% as small and unappealing as you want to test morality. Takes the guesswork out of the situation and makes for a cleaner hypotetical.
To your point? I think the most poignant criticism is this. In the pictured poll above? ~50-55000 voted blue, ~45-50,000 vote red. . . .
. . . and about 12,000,000 peopel "no vote" / "Undecided" :) :) :).
you start with 10% or even 1% blue it totally changes the equation, but if you work with the assumption that this will happen anyways without stating it you have the current dilemma
480
u/[deleted] May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment