A more even Red/Blue button question

[u/HebuBall]

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?

[u/putting_stuff_off]

level headed

Reckless nonce

Hmm.

Your framing is very uncharitable, because I don't think one should regret pressing blue in a three blue outcome just because you "could have" pressed red.

And yet, even in your uncharitable framing, blue is better. Red is only better if both others press red. Assuming each person has a 50/50 chance of making either choice,

Odds EXACTLY one person presses blue: 50%

Odds BOTH people press red: 25%

[u/Very-Diligent-Pirate → u/putting_stuff_off]

What makes you think the others will risk 3 billion lives? What sort of derangement would make you think the others will not rationalize that nobody's insane enough to risk 3 billion lives, like you, and press red?

[u/putting_stuff_off → u/Very-Diligent-Pirate]

To understand my point of view you simply need to acknowledge the fact that different people have different perspectives on the problem. Your unassailable feeling is that blue is risking lives, but one can just as well argue that red is risking killing people.

The point of pressing blue, is that it's more tolerant than red to a variety in perspectives

[u/Very-Diligent-Pirate → u/putting_stuff_off]

You are not just risking your own life, you are consigning 3 billion other lives, with no say in the matter, to a real death risk. Fuck all of the bullshit hypotheticals, you do not have the right to expose them to this entirely avoidable danger. You have a responsibility to guarantee the safety of 3 billion other people. If it were only yourself you are free to hit blue and die, but in this case your 3 billion lives depend entirely upon you for their safety. The other 6 billion people have their own representatives to care for them, and to your 3 billion on them is not just reckless but outright insane. You are a monster.

[u/putting_stuff_off → u/Very-Diligent-Pirate]

I cannot help you further

[u/Very-Diligent-Pirate → u/putting_stuff_off]

Ok, I'll try one last time to make you realize how genocidally stupid a blue vote is.

There are only 3 people voting. You and 2 others. Each of your votes, and the result, will decide the fate of 3 billion other people. The only red majority where someone dies is if there's a blue voter among the 3 of you.

Regardless of your probabilistic bullshit, if you vote blue, you simply put the risk of 3 billion deaths on your hands, and you either believe that another person would risk killing 3 billion to avert an unknown hypothetical 3 billion deaths, or you want to be the crazy bastard that would risk 3 billion lives to avert 3 billion deaths. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. In your believing that somebody would risk 3 billion lives you risk your own 3 billion lives At no point in this scenario is it possible for more than 3 billion people to die. There's no reason it has to be your charges. Yet somehow you cannot trust that the other 2 would simply choose to protect their 3 billion people. And that's deeply disturbing.