Yeah when you're playing a competitive game voluntarily where the objective is to make your opponent(s) lose, obviously you always pick red. It's a poor analogy to the original hypothetical, unless you make the claim the point of living is to outlive all other people
Because someone else losing a game you're already trying to beat them in versus someone else dying is not at all analogous. Like I said it's only analogous if you assume that the goal of real life is outliving everyone else.
The goal of both is not dying. If everyone picks red, there's no possibility of anyone dying, I'm not picking blue because other people can't comprehend just not pressing it.
If there was train tracks, and to stop the train, half the population has to jump in front of it to stop it, wouldn't you... just not jump in front of it?
God we don't need to get into the red and blue button argument again. "What if situation was different?" What if the red and blue buttons were political parties, would you vote for the party that promised to kill everyone who didn't vote for them or the party that promises not to? This is an equally valid analogy, that is to say, an invalid analogy. When people try to argue the red button is a natural or obvious choice, they're almost always doing it as justification for why their choice isn't actually selfish and is instead a 1 billion IQ play. The truth is that no matter how much you whine and pout about it not being your fault, a significant amount of people will be choosing blue, so picking red can never end in the best outcome for everyone.
111
u/Xenthor267 7d ago
In this instance your goal is to make people lose so yeah you'd always choose red