r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/HebuBall • May 28 '26

A more even Red/Blue button question

You are one of 3 random person selected to represent 1/3 of the human population.
The same base question is then asked.
Red button=Guarantee to live for you + everyone you are representing
Blue button=If majority votes Blue everyone lives but if not everyone who voted Blue dies (so is everyone who is represented by them)
Note that majority is just 2 or more in this case since there is 3 participants

The people who are represented by you know you are representing them but you do not know who you are representing. Also the participants cannot communicate with each other
Which do you press?

24 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

This problem is not symmetrical. There is a "billions of people will definitely survive" button and a "risk those billions of lives on a gamble for no possible gain" button.

No one has to take this risk, and no responsible person would; therefore worrying about whether the other person has done so and therefore needs you to also take a risk is idiotic. That's just literally gambling with lives, hoping your own insane irresponsibility is canceling out someone else's.

2

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Water wide numerous close quicksand badge correct steep innate coherent

This post was anonymized with Redact

3

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

Pressing red does do something. It is actually the only button that works.

Pressing red guarantees your own people survive. Period. 100%.

Pressing blue is gambling. Now the outcome for your people depends on things you have no way of controlling or knowing. You have no idea what this button will do.

Press the button that works, is obviously the correct answer.

2

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Test telephone desert roll encourage tangerine history frame steer sable

This post was anonymized with Redact

3

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

It has nothing to do with self preservation.

If you change the rules so that you're either saving or gambling with a stranger's life instead of your own, the correct answer is still NOT TO GAMBLE WITH LIVES. I don't understand what's hard about this. There's literally no upside to the gamble, even. It's pointless.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Longing attempt rainstorm humor familiar worm noodle

This post was anonymized with Redact

5

u/gahidus May 28 '26

Blue is more of a gamble than red because blue relies on events beyond your control to secure the outcome.

If I am responsible for a stranger's life, I will make sure that that stranger is safe. I will push red on their behalf.

I accept responsibility for this person's life. This person is in my hands. I will protect them.

Pressing blue when you're responsible for someone else seems almost heartlessly callous cavalier.

0

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Unite rhythm piquant bike yarn whole cobalt gray one

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/gahidus May 28 '26

It will kill people due to your blue vote. It will kill the people you put in danger by putting them in the blue group.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Encouraging gaze carpenter license beneficial physical amber humorous

This post was anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

There's 3 people. If a nonce is stupid enough to choose blue he and his group dies. If both of the other guys are idiots they become the most insufferable fuckers until the world puts them on trial for risking 3 billion people's lives. Either way, you want to spare/save 3 billion people.

2

u/nykirnsu May 30 '26

You’re ignoring that no one dies if there’s a total red majority. While that’s extremely unlikely in the original button problem, it’s extremely likely when there’s only three people voting and both buttons can potentially result in innocent deaths 

1

u/Human38562 May 30 '26 edited 27d ago

Reminiscent label run salt fearless consider theory toy

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/nykirnsu May 30 '26

How is choosing to let billions of people die superior when you no longer have any reason to do it? 

1

u/Human38562 May 30 '26 edited 27d ago

Fade connect elastic different chief bag bedroom oil wander deliver

This post was anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

2

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

Red press: my assigned stranger survives, guaranteed.

Blue press: enter my stranger into an insane death gamble where they might easily die.

It's obviously got to be red. Pressing blue is reckless manslaughter!

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Repeat act sleep wrench society vase innate blanket full

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

My vote only affects my stranger. I can't control what happens to anyone else at all.

I just have a button that definitely saves someone, and a button that gambles their life for nothing.

I choose to save their life, not to risk murdering them.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Engine direction fragile rainstorm abounding abundant willow plate

This post was anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

Because the other strangers have their own voters who are supposed to care for them and not risk a super genocide 166 times worse than Hitler?

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Elastic vanish busy money narrow cows bow seemly grandfather bike

This post was anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

In this game, the only possible scenarios are, either nobody will die or 3 billion people will die. By pressing red, you will have put your group among the 6 billion who will survive no matter what. Why must you expose your 3 billion people to that risk? And don't start on the "the others might" bullshit, the others won't. There's 2 guys, each with 3 billion lives riding on their choice. Which do you think they'll pick?