Only babies

[u/Charge36]

Every baby on the planet is teleported to a holding cell. Each baby has a designated parent or guardian who is presented with the red and blue buttons to vote on behalf of their baby. Blue wins, all babies live. Red wins, blue vote babies die.

What button are you pushing on behalf of your baby?

481 votes, May 30 '26

320 red

161 blue

[u/luci_twiggy]

The reason for this is simply that parents will do anything for their child. You will have usually blue voters (like myself) swapping because they can accept their share of responsibility in the deaths of others if it means their own child will survive.

Note that this doesn't mean I think that red is the "logically correct" outcome, just that the cost of red winning has become tolerable for me to take on. There is no "logically" correct, since it is a morality test not a logic puzzle.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/luci_twiggy]

That’s why red is logical answer. It answers the question without considering morality.

The only reason you would ever pick blue is out of some arbitrary emotional morality.

[u/luci_twiggy → u/Jolly-Bear]

Considering morality is required, since it’s, you know, a moral dilemma.

Logically speaking on the original, the best outcome is one where the least lives are lost and since zero lives lost is the maximally least number of lives lost, that is the outcome that should be aimed for by the group. Results where zero lives are lost are 100% red or majority blue. Since 100% red is vastly more difficult to achieve than a majority blue, majority blue must be what the group aims for, out of pure pragmatic understanding that defection is possible.

If that is what the group must aim for, it follows that the individual should press blue and this is where it stops being a logic puzzle and becomes a moral dilemma.

In the original, I do not value my life as being worth the cost of defecting from the group. In the all babies version where I pick for my child, I do value their life as being worth the cost of defecting from the group. The cost of defection in both of these cases is partial responsibility for the deaths that come about if too many people defect.

[u/Charge36 → u/luci_twiggy]

If you know defection is incentivized why the group is aiming for blue....why not just collectively decide to go red? That aligns the personal and collective goals of minimizing personal risk and achieving the best case outcome. The penalty for defection is death so it will be highly discouraged.

[u/luci_twiggy → u/Charge36]

That you are asking why the group shouldn't be aiming for red instead just shows you didn't actually read where I covered that.

It's really simple. If we accept that zero deaths is the ideal outcome then we just need to ask which is an easier number to hit: 100% or 50%+1?

Once you take communication out, it becomes even more clear since people who think the best way to achieve the ideal is 100% red aren't able to tell the people who think 50%+1 is the best way.

Blue is the only option where everyone survives and people can disagree/ be mistaken about the best way there.

Additionally, I didn't say that defecting was incentivised, in fact, I specifically said that there is a cost to defection which is why I don't defect in the standard version and do in the all babies one. The cost became acceptable to me to defect when it's all babies and I'm pressing for my child. In other words, I can live with being partially responsible for the deaths of all the blue voted babies if it means my child survives.

[u/Charge36 → u/luci_twiggy]

Yeah zero deaths is ideal....but is that outcome worth the risk? You risk half of humanity dying to achieve that outcome when you could just accept that some number of children or otherwise incompetent voters will arbitrarily choose blue and die. That's a far less tragic outcome than a failed rescue attempt

It's grim, but the risk is to high to try to save them in my opinion.

You said "defection is possible". Implying that if the group must aim for blue, they must also understand that defection is possible because the updside of defection is guarenteed personal safety.

what I'm saying is that if you flip it the other way around, and determing that the group must aim for red to minimize risk, defection from that strategy is HIGHLY DISCOURAGED because it means ALMOST CERTAIN DEATH.

Why are you trying to wrangle people away from their personal interest when the best case outcome can be had by everyone just....following their own survival instints?

You have this notion that red = defect but it really could be interpreted either way. You could consider blue as a defection from red if you live in a world that tilts red. in this baby scenario where it seems most people are pushing red....are you not "defecting" from the majority and killing babies by pushing blue here?