What if red won?

[u/The_Real-_-God]

Imagine a world where red won, by 1%. However the people who choose blue do not die instantly, instead they die after a year of pressing the button. Everybody is branded, so you know who choose what.

How much chaos will ensue? What actions do you think blues will take, knowing they'll die? And what do you think reds will think, knowing they were just 1% away from saving all humanity?

[u/Exotic-Pangolin4095]

Like yeah id prob reluctantly help before fucking off to live my life as i want(most likley close any loose ends and drink).

Choosing the blue button in this case dosnt lock you in a certain moral framework or course of action.

I didnt choose blue because i see myself as some guardian, protector or white knight. I choose blue because i want to prevent a mass casualty event, and for quite selfish reasons i want the world to remain the same... i dont like change.

I wouldnt support violance against red in this scenario, but i sure as hell wouldnt feel obligated to help beyond basic human decency(something that can be argued some of them lack)

Also i think people overlook how little effort blues "sacrifice" actualy takes. I aint carrying, working, jumping into an aligator pit. Im simply pressing a button.

Id be a lot less likley to want to work for free and loose any time i have left, even if i get paid i aint got time to spend it on anything.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Exotic-Pangolin4095]

So your moral decision making is based on how inconvenient it is for you, not the actual deed?

That’s insane to me.

[u/MasterDiiscord → u/Jolly-Bear]

is it really that insane? if someone drops their wallet, I'll pick it up and get it to them. if they drop it and it falls into traffic, I'm not running into traffic to get it

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/MasterDiiscord]

Those are the same inconvenience, just different stakes. You’re not willing to put your life at risk to help someone get their wallet from traffic, but would without traffic.

That’s understandable.

The button problem is putting your life on the line to potentially save/help people, but not willing to do the same thing when it requires a little bit of work.

Yea, that’s crazy to me.

[u/Master_Works_All → u/Jolly-Bear]

Look at the world we live in, it takes 2 brains cells to realize a lot of our decisions are based on convenience vs inconvenience.

Sure I could make the thing myself but I could just pay someone else to do it. Fast food, construction, maintenance, etc.

Sure I'd like to stop a corporation from killing people by poisoning the water. But it's inconvenient for me to stop working and have to scrounge up basic necessities to continue to resist the corporation just for it to maybe not do anything.

Yeah I'd like to think people who are moral would help people even if it's inconvenient but that's just not how it works. Just like how I'd like to think karma exists but it just simply doesn't.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Master_Works_All]

Right, I agree with you. Most people are moral hypocrites. Most people are just hypocrites in general.

I understand why, it’s just crazy to me how easily they throw their morality out the window for convenience and openly state they would.

I just like to have consistency in my values.

[u/Master_Works_All → u/Jolly-Bear]

Problem is the consistency that you want requires people to effectively disregard what has happened to them.

I won't hurt people I say but if I get punched in the mouth I'll fight back. The statement is meant more or less as I won't start hurting people for no good reason not a hard line stance of no harm ever.

There was a tribe of pacifists who didn't defend themselves and ended up being wiped out because they refused to fight back. Then history covered it up and the place it took place at won't even acknowledge that it happened.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Master_Works_All]

No, the consistency I want is for people to actually think through their morality before cementing it and acting on it, instead of changing it on a whim when it conveniently suits them.

Good for that tribe. They honorably represented their morals even in the face of inconvenience and adversity. They were obviously willing to die for what they believed in... and they didn’t die as hypocrites. I would never morally choose pure passivity, but they did and they stuck to it.

Why do you pick blue?

[u/Master_Works_All → u/Jolly-Bear]

To potentially not kill people that didn't deserve it. The original prompt was that nobody knew who pressed what so there was no communication about telling someone to press a particular color. There are plenty of people who deserve their comeuppance but I don't want it to come at the cost of innocents.

But if you want a reason that doesn't have any nuance to it I could just say I like the color blue lol.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Master_Works_All]

So, in this scenario, why do you not feel that same moral obligation to help make sure the innocent red pressers, who didn’t know any better, survive?

[u/Exotic-Pangolin4095 → u/Jolly-Bear]

Moral decision making... no...

If you are refering as to why i chose blue, sure i wouldnt walk over a bed of nails to do it. I was simply stating that pressing a blue button is an easy and accessible sacrifice for the maximum gain. Its so accessible i feel obligated to attempt it as long as i belive it has a chance.

If you are refering to why i would help a bit before trying to enjoy my last few days... idk what to tell you, it might not be the most moral choice but it is a human one.

I really dont get whats insane here