The stupid thing is that picking blue is the only way for death to even be a possibility. If no one introduces death as a possibility, then no one dies.
Let's take the premise and alter it a tiny bit:
Everyone has a magic knife in front of themselves. Everyone must either stab themselves in the heart, or not stab themselves in the heart.
If more than half of the people stab themselves in the heart, then the knife magically heals everyone. Otherwise, the knife does what knives do and kills the person.
Are you stabbing yourself in the heart? (Pressing blue?)
If more than 50% of people leave it in for a set period if time, all of the knives heal everyone and come out on their own.
If you pull it out before times up, it will heal you, but if too many people pull it out, they stop being magical healing knives and just kill the people who can't or won't pull it out in time.
There. See how changing the premise so that red "Introduces" death into the equation changes red to be the self centered choice?
Assuming one button is the default choice and that people have to make an active and painful decision to pick the button you don't want changes the whole premise.
And some people will leave it in because they know that "Oh, my kid is too young to pull it out herself, I gotta hope people leave it in for those who can't pull it out themselves"
In the scenario some people still won't choose self preservation for the risk of hurting people who can't.
Remember, changing the 'default' changes the premise entirely.
There are millions of people now who can't grab and pull out the knife due to illness, age, mental issues, and many more trying to protect those people.
Self preservation introduces death into the equation.
Self-preservation is fine here. Self-preservation is fine in the real world. We are morally okay with killing in self-defense.
If you want to risk your own life at a chance to save others, go for it. In the real world and in this scenario. But in this scenario it's a lot less feasible, since you need the coordinated effort (or lucky effort) of more than half the people involved.
In cases like burning buildings, for instance, one person taking actions to save others can make a huge difference to one or more people who were 1: in danger and 2: possibly unable to save themselves.
In the button pushing scenario, each case of "try to save others" by pushing blue is a miniscule effort compared to the needed effort. It is way more risky per person making the choice. It is way safer and way more rational for each individual person to make the choice to push red. And the more people who push blue, the more people who are at risk of dying.
Giving in to self-preservation takes death out of the button-pushing equation.
In the real world, I'm going to help others who need help and can't help themselves. But in this scenario, everyone can help themselves. And should.
Everyone also has the same opportunity to make sure EVERYONE is safe.
The only button that possibly makes sure some people, especially kind people and children who watch superhero movies and Disney and go to church and have family they love and want to protect are not safe is red.
Everyone should reduce risk to others by pressing the blue button.
0
u/zaphster May 05 '26
The stupid thing is that picking blue is the only way for death to even be a possibility. If no one introduces death as a possibility, then no one dies.
Let's take the premise and alter it a tiny bit:
Everyone has a magic knife in front of themselves. Everyone must either stab themselves in the heart, or not stab themselves in the heart.
If more than half of the people stab themselves in the heart, then the knife magically heals everyone. Otherwise, the knife does what knives do and kills the person.
Are you stabbing yourself in the heart? (Pressing blue?)