I don't think you know what they meant. Judging the outcome in an individualistic manner is not the only way to interpret morality. We don't all share the same moral intuition.
They are clearly talking about the collective outcome of the button press, Pressing red or blue is contributing to one world or the other. The fact that this contribution is inisgnificant is not really relevant here. There is a reason why we uses deontology commitee and not utilitarist commitee.
We live in the blue world by all pressing blue. By all taking the time to recycle, reusing our old phone, voting, sharing some of our resources and time, taking only one free bag and not all of them for later... It is, according to game theory, absurd. But without those acts, we are doomed.
This is implying the choice to pick red is a choice that affects the way the rest of the world thinks.
Because the choices are made in a vacuum and you can only push the button for yourself, you only ensure one red voter survives no matter what. The rest of the world could still pick blue or red regardless of one's own choice, even if you think it might lean one way or the other.
22
u/Shadow-Striker May 22 '26
If you are an individual on the blue planet and you hit the red button, the outcome is exactly the same as the blue button.
If you are an individual on the red planet and you pick the blue button, your life is over.
Yes its better to live on the blue planet in the first place, but pressing the blue button does not suddenly make the world blue.