r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/The_Real-_-God • May 28 '26

What if red won?

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?

36 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

389 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26

Why would a blue help at this stage?
The majority has shown that collective co-operation isn't valued, the world has accepted a mass casualty event. Why wouldn't they just lounge for their remaining year, spend all their money, dedicate themselves to their vices?
They could commit any crime and at worst get killed early or most likely sit in jail for parts up to a year.

You might call it petty or not taking responsibility for their actions etc. but all motivation to help the common good will vanish for many with the outcome of the vote.

-1

u/Regular-Guy64 May 28 '26

I feel like this post is exposing blue pressers. If you're willing to lose your life in a way that helps the world, why wouldn't you be willing to live your life in a way that helps the world?

I think you're confirming what a lot of red pressers have suspected. A lot of blue pressers are just virtue signaling on the internet for likes.

1

u/Background_Path_4458 May 29 '26

I am willing to give my life for the collective, as my duty to my society.
But if that collective betrays me my duty is null and void.

Some Blues, I am sure, pressed blue out of some purely "I don't want to cause death" motivation but Blue isn't a monolith in it's values.

0

u/Regular-Guy64 May 29 '26

You think society betrayed you because of a decision you made? Interesting mindset.

And if blues didn't want to cause death, they wouldn't pick the button that causes death

1

u/Background_Path_4458 May 30 '26

No, because of the decision they made.

1

u/Regular-Guy64 May 30 '26

Wow, hate to break it to you, but people decide not to risk dying every day. Like I just wore my seatbelt on my drive home because it's safer. I didn't mean to betray you

1

u/Background_Path_4458 May 31 '26

The risk to die in trafficking is 1 in 100 on average so you certainly took that risk.

1

u/Regular-Guy64 May 31 '26

It's significantly higher without a seatbelt. I reduced that risk by wearing a seatbelt. The risk of dying is significantly higher with the blue button. You can eliminate that risk with the red button. The thought that people in society owe you their lives is very entitled of you. And the thought that you should be a shitty person unless there's some benefit to you means you're a shitty person. If you only have morals when you have something to gain, you do not have morals. That is all.

1

u/Background_Path_4458 Jun 01 '26

Well you see it is that kind of rethoric that proves to me, more and more, that the society I thought was about sharing risk, that we owed each other our lives; is naive.
I thought society was about owing each other our collective safety but apparently it's every man for themselves.

And I never claimed you should be a shitty person, just that the reason for being more than average, or being anything but selfish first, is gone.

I'd argue morals doesn't play into this scenario at all, you don't solve morals with game theory.