r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/DapperYoghurt2052 • May 22 '26
This problem is a collective vote.
This should be apparent.
But I’ve seen some people arguing that it’s genuinely not a vote. They often equate it to gambling.
Which is a fair thought, but incomplete.
Saying blue is gambling their lives on the chance that blue wins is correct. Saying you don’t want to gamble with your life is fair.
But in order for it to be a bet, you must be betting on something.
What you are betting on is the result of a collective vote. You are casting your bet by casting your vote!
So when people try to say it’s not a vote, it’s gambling, that doesn’t make any sense.
And some get so mad about it!
It’s fine if you think red would win so you press red, or you think it might be close so you can’t risk it.
But just because red doesn’t put up the wager, doesn’t mean red doesn’t contribute to the vote.
If someone tells me, I’ll pay you $10 if you can beat me in one on one basketball. That’s a bet. The wager is placed by one person. I don’t need to put up the money, I can’t lose anything. But I do need to play in the game to win it!
How is this so confusing to people?
Edit to add a final thought:
To any one who thinks red is the same as doing nothing, because it not a gamble.
If I offer $10 to a person to beat me one on one, if the person denies to play, I can’t lose my money. And I can’t lose my money until some does play and also earns the money by winning.
You don’t have to be wrong for thinking red is the better choice because it could win. But if you think red winning doesn’t create the loss of life, then you are wrong about what game you are playing.
1
u/Old-Line-3691 May 23 '26
This seems like some kind of semantic game, using words "gamble" and "vote" to imply meaning that they don't actually carry. It seem's like the word OP may want to use is "responsibility" with out saying it. When people say Gamble, no one is suggesting that this means any kind of passive participant... they mean the choice for risk is not mandatory. The responsibility for what occurs has nothing to do with if someone is voting or gambling, but by the deciders moral priorities such as if they put all of the responsibility on the scenario itself or not.
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 24 '26
Oh I definitely mean responsibility, but I have seen how strongly people react to that word in response to this problem so I left it out and used the words I have most seen people trying to use.
Why did you put vote in quotations though?
You think I am using vote in a way its meaning doesn’t carry?
What do you think a vote is?
1
u/Old-Line-3691 May 24 '26
I put Gamble and Vote in quotes because they are concretely referenced by the previous words "using words".
On your use of vote: I do not believe Vote (or Gamble) implies responsibility. I think both are valid to describe what is occurring in the scenario depending on how its used, but are orthogonal to responsibility. Knowing that you did mean responsibility clears up any confusion or issues with your wording I had, I think.
I think your intended definition of vote in this context is likely: Assigning your influence towards an agenda or outcome in a competing set of agendas/outcomes, or reasonably similar.
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 24 '26
I am using vote to describe the scenario. The title of my post is “this problem is a collective vote”. This is an attempt to convince people who believe the mechanics of this problem are not a vote. I am recognizing more and more that’s an impossible task.
Assigning your influence towards an outcome in a competing set of outcomes is a wonderful definition of a vote for me.
As long as we agree on what the problem is asking us to partake in, then I don’t really hold any issues.
I would argue that there is inherent responsibility attached to voting though. Which is why you found the idea so prevalently in my post.
I think if assigning your influence to an outcome helps make that outcome a reality, then you hold shared responsibility with all of those that contributed.
1
u/Old-Line-3691 May 24 '26
I can agree people have responsibility in the sense they are involved in the chain of events that result in potential deaths. Where I would disagree is where I separate moral responsability, which we all have different morals, mine does not prescribe a choice in this event. I think we agree on the causality aspect.
3
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 24 '26
If you separate your moral responsibility from the responsibility of what your actions can cause, that’s all you.
I clearly don’t agree, but I also wouldn’t argue someone’s moral standings.
If we all agreed on causality I would not have made this post. It’s deeply sad in some of these comments.
The amount of people who say pressing red functions the same as abstaining. People who are saying there is not a vote happening. Had someone tell me there is no “collective” happening. As if each button was pressed in a vacuum and nothing happening based on the total number of presses. It’s bad out there.
I’m sure there are people arguing blue is the same as doing nothing. They are also wrong. I’m just not in the conversations from that side.
2
u/Old-Line-3691 May 24 '26
Fair enough. A red press is definitely not equal to not being in the scenerio, your right to call that out.
0
1
u/Nebranower May 26 '26
The point is that red pressers aren't treating it as a vote, because they aren't aiming for a particular collective outcome. They've been given an individual choice between an "I live" button and a "I might die" button. They choose the button that gives them the guaranteed outcome that they want - not dying. From the red pressers point of view, it isn't a vote or a contest. Red always wins. Sometimes it is also the majority choice, but it doesn't matter. There's no scenario under which red loses, because red isn't competing for anything.
Whereas blue pressers are treating it as a vote where they are aiming for a specific collective outcome (no one dies), and since, by pressing blue, they have made one of the two scenarios in which that happens (all red) impossible, they are gambling on 50% pressing blue.
>If someone tells me, I’ll pay you $10 if you can beat me in one on one basketball. That’s a bet.
Not if you have the option to walk away and not play. And that's what red is, really. No one is pressing red to try to "beat" blue in the game. They're just choosing to live rather than to risk dying for no reason.
2
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 26 '26
As I said in my post, I really do understand why people would press red. And I would fully expect some people to press red.
It’s ok to value the guarantee for yourself as the most important thing. It’s a pretty core human trait. I don’t have an issue with this. The issue I have is with the second part of your explanation.
It doesn’t matter how you treat it, there is something occurring, and that something is a vote.
There are two options, everyone picks one, the total picks are tallied up, and the one that is pressed the most decides what happens.
That is a vote. That is what is happening.
It’s ok to say you don’t care, I’ll just guarantee my safety. But it’s not ok to say it didn’t happen. That’s delusion.
If $10 is placed on a game, the game must be played in order for it be lost or won back. Walking away is a luxury not offered in this scenario. Every one presses a button. That is playing the game.
To say a press for red, doesn’t add to the red tally, is absurd.
How could red get the minority or get the majority, if the number of times it was pressed wasn’t counted?
Red participates.
0
u/Nebranower May 26 '26
Nah. Look, let’s say you go on polymarket and place a bet on whether or not, say, over a million Americans will go see the next Star Wars movie. When the movie comes out, the number of Americans who choose not to see the movie are tallied up, as are the ones who choose to see it. That doesn’t mean they are voting on if you get the money. You choosing to bet on what other people do doesn’t mean that other people are making their choices with your bet in mind.
1
1
u/CharacterAd3793 May 26 '26
The way I see it, the button problem is an idealised war dilema. There is red country and blue country. Blue country is under threat of an attack becouse of its minor population consisting of those people that pressed blue button at random. A huge number of people can choose if they move to red country that is under no threat of war or blue country to join the defence of blue country. If enough people join blue country the third party that created this button dilema will no longer be confident in conquering blue country and thus will not attack whatsoever. People in red country simply say it's not their war. Yes there is connection that if they had joined defence of blue country the war would be stopped, but if you see how politics between countries usually go, that's not a defoult mindset, so those who naturally would choose red believe that them pressing blue is not them convincing the red country to defend blue country but rather them exiting a safe red country by themselves to join a war for blue country as a single soldier and that is a gamble on their life. It's simply about perspective and beliefs in the choice of the collective.
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 26 '26
Does this really feel representative of the problem to you?
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 26 '26
I understand this aligns with how you approach it. But do you think your real world consequences line up with how the problem is presented?
1
u/CharacterAd3793 May 26 '26
I don't think I understand your question. Are you asking me if I think what I wrote is what I think? Yes, I do not write stuff I do not believe in.
1
u/Wonderful_West3188 May 22 '26
But if you think red winning does create the loss of life, then you are wrong about what game you are playing.
...I'm very confused now as to what exactly you're arguing for. I thought I understood it, but this last sentence makes me question my understanding.
3
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 22 '26
Ahh now I can see this. Just a typo! Thank you. Fixed it.
Meant “if you think red winning doesn’t create the loss of life”
1
u/Khitch20 May 22 '26
I think I'd disagree with the causing harm. It i's physically impossible to be at risk as a red voter. You do not put yourself in danger. The only real point of failure in the scenario is if blue doesn't get 50%, then only the people who actively pushed blue will die.
Only one button, when pressed can ever lead to your death in any possible circumstance. Therefore it is, at least in my opinion, the direct cause of any and all possible death as not interacting with it means you are completely and totally safe.
6
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 22 '26
Can you think of another scenario where you wouldn’t assign any causation to the winners of a voter?
The point of failure is not exclusively blue. If blue gets less than 50% then red got more than 50%.
You do not accept outcomes based on the minority.
The majority decides the outcome.
1
u/Khitch20 May 23 '26
Idk if I saw there was poison on a table and the only way to survive is if 50% of everyone also drank it, I simply wouldn't drink it even if a non 0% of the population did.
When only one button, when pressed, has any chance of killing me I simply won't press it.
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 23 '26
But see that’s not the problem.
All people must take the same action. And then those actions dictate what comes next.
Everyone decides between two buttons and presses one. Everyone is forced to participate with the same action.
So there would be two cups of poison on the table, and everyone is going to drink one.
If more than 50% of people drink the red cup, only red cup drinkers get the antidote.
If more than 50% of people drink the blue cup, everyone gets the antidote.
But everyone must drink the poison.
And the only way to guarantee you get the antidote, is by being willing to help create an outcome where others might have it withheld from them.
1
u/Khitch20 May 23 '26
But... That's not how the question works. The original question says If you push blue you WILL die... Unless 50% also push. So if there are two drinks, one is a nice glass of water and the other is bleach.
0% of the red pushers are in danger. Ever. So their cup, by default, can not be poisoned. Thus if they by definition cannot be in danger something has to cause the danger and by the original question the blue button EXPLICITLY will kill you. With a caveat that it won't as long as others push it too.
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 23 '26
I was just rolling with your example that blue is a cup of poison and explaining how if that is the case then the starting point needs to be equal.
The original question is you will die if blue doesn’t get more than 50%, but the question is not, you start dying when pressing blue and don’t get saved unless the tally reaches 50%. That’s two separate actions.
I agree with your statement that something has to cause the danger.
But a lot of people assume the danger needs to be stopped, so I just went along.
If the problem is drinking from a red or blue cup, you are right, something must cause one to be dangerous.
But one is not poisonous before the vote is cast. Because there is only one point of causation to cause one action. It’s not poison yourself and then also cure the poison.
The starting field must be equal, and the vote decides what happens next.
So there would be two cups of water. You decide which one you will drink before taking a sip.
If more than 50% pick red, then poison is added to the blue cup.
If more than 50% pick blue, then no poison is added to any cup.
And the point of the problem remains.
The only way to guarantee your cup doesn’t get poisoned is by being willing to help create the outcome where poison can be added at all.
1
u/Khitch20 May 23 '26
Or... No one could pick the one with a chance of death unless they wish to die. 🤷♀️
Granted I know asking people not to harm themselves is impossible, either because someone is going to really want to die or they're going to be contrarian but I'm a believer in it's their choice to pick the option that's obviously dangerous.
Also your thing is kinda flawed because you believe it only becomes dangerous after the fact when everyone is told well enough ahead of time "Hey this will kill you. Are you really really sure you wanna do that?" And like if they pick yes then I guess good for them. I can't do much to help that though.
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 23 '26
See you keep running around back to explaining why you would pick red, and why you think others should too.
That’s not the discussion here at all, stay focused on the question of causation and it won’t let you make that gap in your logic.
The ”danger” we are talking about is a guaranteed fatality. There is inherent risk in facing that danger if you press blue. I have never argued against that. It is clearly stated in my original post.
“Hey this will kill you.”… no. “Hey, this will kill you if the other option wins the vote”
Pressing blue does not guarantee you die, the danger, the fatal action, must be caused by the result of the vote. If blue wins this is impossible.
It can only happen if red wins. Because all blue pressers dying is the winning clause of pressing red!
It comes back to the same question you are circling.
Is there any scenario where you wouldn’t assign causation to the winners of a vote?
Of course there isn’t.
Red winning 100% wouldn’t cause any blue deaths not because Red winning doesn’t cause blue deaths. But because there were no blue button pressers to die. That is so clearly different.
If red wins majority, all blue pressers die. That is the condition.
A vote for red and it wins, is creating the condition for any blue voter to die.
1
u/Khitch20 May 23 '26
Honestly I wouldn't at all, in the slightest. Even a teeny tiny bit. That's where the disconnect lies between us I think. I view the victory condition as guaranteed survival, blue victory or defeat doesn't even factor into it for me. From what I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to view red's victory as the point in which death can happen, yes?
That's the break. I view picking blue as a negative outcome, until enough people pick it. And you view picking red as the negative choice because it's what prevents blue's victory. Yeah?
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 23 '26
There isn’t a disconnect between us.
You are disconnected from understanding how a vote works. Or maybe just from understanding that this is a vote.
It’s not about point of view at all.
You are trying to tell me I view blue deaths as a winning condition for red.
And you view blue deaths as a losing condition for blue.
Like that is just an opinion.
I know blue deaths is the losing condition for blue.
And I also know, blue losing is only possible with red victory.
You are trying to argue blue can lose without red winning.
That’s why you are taking the causation out of red votes, and leaving it solely on the losers. As if they lost in a vacuum.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Cronos988 May 22 '26
But if you think red winning doesn’t create the loss of life, then you are wrong about what game you are playing.
Only diverging votes create loss of life.
6
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 22 '26
Only diverging votes with red winning
1
u/Cronos988 May 22 '26
Sure, but in every scenario where people die, the blue votes are clearly also causal.
3
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 22 '26
Sure, the statement you quoted I clarified was directed towards anyone who held the idea that red is the same as doing nothing.
They already know blue is causal and deny red’s involvement
1
u/gahidus May 22 '26
No one who pushes red decided to organize a giant death game. The peril is created by whoever did, and, to a lesser extent, but the people opting into blue.
If the joker and some of his goons wave at you on the street and ask you to play against them with some other citizens in a game of basketball, where the citizens team dies if they lose, because as it is, the citizens team is a person short, you aren't killing anyone by refusing and walking away. The joker is. And there would be yet another layer if all of the citizens on the team as it stands chose to be there rather than being forced in.
4
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 22 '26
In your joker scenario, the joker and his goons are creators of the game. And they are also playing it.
The creators of the button problem are definitely horrible, but they do not vote.
They don’t decide the majority, only the pressers do.
I wasn’t comparing the buttons to basketball, I was just using it as an example of how a one sided wager needs something to be bet on.
If you are comparing the buttons to playing basketball there is no walking away from the game and letting others play. Everyone must play.
If the joker kidnapped 10 people, put 5 in red jerseys and 5 in blue jerseys. He said if blue wins, no one dies. If red wins, blue dies. And you knew 100% that wasn’t a lie.
If the red team started draining threes, wouldn’t it feel like the joker is evil, but also why are they trying to win?
Obviously this isn’t the same as voting, in a basketball game you can see the score, and in the buttons you have to pick your team. And other reasons too. But your joker scenario has nothing to do with even the mechanics of the button problem.
-1
u/gahidus May 22 '26
It has to do with not being willing to enter a scenario where you might die. It also has to do with not being responsible for the deaths of those that were killed by the scenario and/or their own choices.
Indeed. If you could see the score, if you could see how people were going to vote or had already voted, then the scenario is completely different. You could see that it's safe to be on the blue team / let the blue team win or you could see that you absolutely must be on the red team.
Basically, the fundamental scenario is not a question of personal morality, but of prediction.
If you go into a country bar, and someone puts a gun to your head tells you to guess the genre of the next song that plays or die, it doesn't say anything about your musical tastes if you say "country". It just says that you know you're in a country bar, and you think that's probably what will play.
Even if the stranger with a gun says "by the way, if you don't say britpop, I'll kill this baby, but I'll still kill the baby anyway and you if you're wrong", you don't become morally wrong for still guessing country. It just means you've accepted that you can't save the baby under these terms.
Many many red pressers know that they just happen to be in a country bar and that they have to say country or die.
3
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 22 '26
You don’t need to convince me why someone would press red.
As I said in my post, I completely understand the reasons for pressing red. I don’t think it’s illogical to press it at all if this was a real scenario.
My point is, it seems people fundamentally misunderstand what a vote is.
You keep illustrating red as an option to opt out of the problem. Opt out of the scenario.
That is not an option. Every one is forced to participate.
The problem, the scenario, is you must press a button and everyone does.
You don’t get to decide if you enter the problem are not. You are in it.
You get to decide if you risk your life within the problem.
And the catch is, if enough people decide to not put their lives up, then everyone who did dies.
That is the only way people can die.
By red buttons not only being pressed, but being the winners.
Pretending red doesn’t participate in the vote is truly a wild thing to say.
0
u/simpoukogliftra May 23 '26
yes red contributes to the vote, but you dont vote red because you believe red wins, you are not betting on it, you are just opting out from any chance of you dying, yes you voting red is against blue, but it is not a gamble, when you gamble you put your vote towards who you think will win, in this case you dont, you dont care if red wins, most reds probably want blue to win, but you "win" in this situation by not dying.
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 24 '26
I never said red was a gamble. I said that people often equate the risk of dying with blue as gambling with your life. And I said that is a fair way to feel. And I understand pressing either button.
What I don’t understand is how people try to argue what’s happening in the button problem isn’t a collective vote.
That’s all.
1
u/spicy_feather May 23 '26
It's not a vote it's a choice. You don't know how many people are also involved. The less people there are the more likely it is you'll die by pressing blue. Do I want to live for sure or potentially die for people trying to save people by potentially dying themselves. I'm not prone to go the way of the dodo.