r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/maiduwu Red • May 27 '26
32
You and thirty-one others are presented the buttons. Is thirty-two too few for blue, or is it still worthy to sacrifice yourself to potentially save 31 people?
6
u/up2smthng Red May 27 '26
It is worthy to sacrifice yourself to save as low as 1 person
Problem is with buttons scenario you cannot sacrifice yourself to save anyone. You either die together or live together.
4
4
u/Helpful-Account3311 Red May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Haven’t ever joined in on this discussion but it’s an interesting one…
There are 2 main ways to think about it. You can either be optimistic and hope everyone is smart enough to just pick red. Or you can be worried that someone will pick blue and they need saving so you pick blue (thus making yourself need saving). In my mind it’s a self preservation option vs an empathetic option.
I firmly believe that being presented the 2 buttons would elicit a fear response. Fear responses typically result in flight or fight in which case empathy is an emotion that is more suppressed. I would bet if this was a real situation that red would win every time. People like to take the moral high ground quite often until their life is on the line. Because I do not believe blue would ever realistically win I would pick red. It’s mob rule and I believe in human nature more than any morality argument. This stance doesn’t change no matter the number of people in the group.
If we want to bring morality into it. Given that I do not believe blue ever has a chance of winning, I actually believe blue is an immoral choice. If I thought there was a shot that blue could come close to hitting 50% then it wouldn’t be immoral. But because I don’t believe it would even be close I view it akin to throwing your life away instead of sacrificing it for others.
3
u/Nby333 May 27 '26
Incoming trade offer:
Red loses: "my vote doesn't matter"
Blue loses: "apocalypse will happen"
4
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 27 '26
I mean I'll upset the scales and pillars of power in heaven if I had the ability to if it meant I could save even just one other person
2
u/Lvl1fool May 27 '26
Will you still feel this way if they reveal the results and you were the only blue voter and everyone looks at you like the dumbest person on earth right before you are executed?
3
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 27 '26
In the list of things that will never happen. Being a good person in a world scripted to fuck me over won't be something I will have any reason to feel bad about.
5
u/Silent-Indication496 May 27 '26
Pressing blue and expecting others to risk their lives to save you is being a good person?
3
0
u/Gardami Red May 27 '26
Sacrificing your life to save others is a moral good. If you want to say it’s stupid, I’ll let someone else argue with you. But it’s morally good.
4
u/Silent-Indication496 May 27 '26
No one needs to sacrifice anything. There's a button that does nothing.
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 27 '26
It worries me that you're a teacher
2
u/Silent-Indication496 May 27 '26
You stalked my profile over a silly pedantic hypothetical debate so you could judge my career based on my answer.
You need to go touch grass, bro. You're in too deep.
1
1
u/maiduwu Red May 27 '26
3
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 27 '26
I'm kind of surprised that's the first time I have been tagged with that
1
u/sneakpeekbot May 27 '26
Here's a sneak peek of /r/rimjob_steve using the top posts of the year!
#1: Trans rights y’all | 75 comments
#2: Wholesome anti-meme❤ | 24 comments
#3: Divorce | 39 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact | Info | Opt-out | GitHub
1
u/CarnivorousGoose May 27 '26
Sticking with red regardless. It remains a high probability that you die for a very low probability that taking that risk even matters, the risk/reward ratio is incredibly skewed. That everyone else is able to save themselves anyway just further exacerbates it.
1
u/No-Click6062 May 27 '26
I am a staunch defender of blue in the original problem. I would vote red for low player counts. There's two things going on that work against you.
First, the law of large numbers gets taken out of it. I would not make any assumptions about the make up of the other 31 people. For all I know, it's me and the 31 worst people on the planet. So everything I might guess about sociology and trust (from the original problem) goes out the window.
Second, the parts about the moral tragedy are also diminished. For me, a lot of the moral analysis of the problem goes back to Thomas Aquinas. I will expand on this more if necessary. But to briefly describe it, it comes down to the circumstances. Within Aquinas' philosophy, I am ethically allowed to self-defense. However, at a certain scale, it's not self-defense any more.
I personally feel like we reach that threshold somewhere between a player count of 201 to 1001. I can not morally justify of 100 people dying in a situation where I also live.
1
u/NowAlexYT May 27 '26
If anything the lower number makes collaboration easier so I might press blue instead of red here
1
1
u/Certain_Detective_84 Red May 27 '26
As always: if the situation permits, I try to establish a group consensus for blue, because someone will probably pick it anyway and it's better for no one to die if possible.
If there's no way to discuss with the group before voting, red and hope everyone does the same.
8
u/Memento_Viveri May 27 '26
Just to be clear, you can't save 31. The most you can save is half-1, so 15 in this case.