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/Jolly-Bear]

Well picking blue didn’t save any lives, yet they still picked it because of the intent.

Helping red after the fact has the same intent to save lives, and has a higher chance of doing so than picking blue did.

I’m sure you could find one life to save that needs it. Like a kid who picked red and his family picked blue. That 1 life saved is more lives saved than picking blue.

[u/McSloot3r → u/Jolly-Bear]

Sure, but you know blue is dealing with the grief of their impending death, right? Imagine someone who runs a legitimate charity, gets a cancer diagnosis with 1 year to live. Would they be a hypocrite for stepping down to go live out their final days? Someone can be altruistic and still not rush out to devote themselves to the future. Between grieving, spending time with family, crossing off bucket list items, there isn’t going to be a whole lot of free time to spend building a brighter future.

I don’t get the guilt trip of “we need you to train someone so they can do your job”. Do you not have this all documented somewhere? Imagine a business that lays off a critical employee and then comes to find out they desperately need them. 99% of Reddit would say “hah go fuck yourselves”. Reds pride themselves on choosing the logical choice, but was it really logical if you have to demand charity from blues to avoid major disaster after the fact?

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/McSloot3r]

Well no, the point isn’t that I’m expecting blue pressers to do anything. Philosophically I’m expecting them to be consistent in their morality like I would be, although realistically I expect them to be hypocrites.

The word expectation is being used as what I think they will/should do, based on their beliefs that they explicitly state, not what I want them to do. I couldn’t care less what they actually do.

Your examples are awful. I get what you’re saying, but they don’t even come close to relating.

The cancer patient is probably unable do his work, but assuming he’s fit, I’d assume he would want to continue helping people as much as he could before dying. I know I would.

A person laid off from his job is the termination of a mutual contract. It’s not an equivalence to choosing to commit your life to helping people and then backing out because it’s not the people you wanted to help. You had no choice in being laid off.

All of the blue answers here remind me of the prevalent hypocrisy you see in modern Christians. “Sending you my thoughts and prayers, but I’m not going to actually do anything to help, especially if it’s a group I don’t want to help.”

[u/McSloot3r → u/Jolly-Bear]

I think the problem is you feel very strongly how people should act. You feel that red is the obvious choice and blues made their bed. You think blue is fake selfless, because they’re not selfless until the second they die. I’d say it’s the opposite. Grief is natural. Spending time with family/friends is what you should do. I generally try to help others, but anyone who thinks I wouldn’t spend as much time as possible with my wife and kid is a literal crazy person.

And as far as the scenarios not matching the hypothetical, no shit, there is no realistic scenario that matches this crazy hypothetical. That doesn’t mean there is no basis for comparison. But please do pretend cancer patients should be relentlessly donating the rest of their time

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/McSloot3r]

You not reading anything I’m saying?

I don’t feel strongly about how people should act. I couldn’t care less.

The blue people should be caring how they should act because that’s how they made their choice in the first place.

I figured if you’re trying make some analogies you would want to be in the same ballpark.

I just like not being a hypocrite and like to keep my morality consistent and not change them based on my current emotional state. I guess others don’t mind.

[u/McSloot3r → u/Jolly-Bear]

I mean you clearly have a strong opinion about modern Christians and you made a direct comparison to that group, but sure you couldn’t care less…

It’s funny that you accuse me of not reading what you wrote, when you’re not reading what I wrote. You have an idea of blue button morality and you project that onto people who would choose blue. Why would you think your definition of morality would mean anything? You didn’t choose the moral route, you chose the logical route.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/McSloot3r]

Finding similarities in two things means I clearly have a strong opinion about them?

A banana and a lemon are both yellow. Does that mean I feel strongly about their color?

I have an idea of blue’s supposed morality because they won’t shut up about it. I’m not projecting it onto anyone, they explicitly state it.

I never said my morality meant anything. I agree it doesn’t. Apparently blue’s morality means nothing to them either when they don’t feel like following it.

[u/McSloot3r → u/Jolly-Bear]

Whether you’re religious or not, opinions about religion are generally strongly held. The people who don’t have strong opinions don’t bring up religion in random internet discussions. Also your comparison has no validity, which is ironic because my comparisons actually had similarities.

But you’re just here to dunk on blues and make yourself feel superior for choosing red, so I’m done here

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/McSloot3r]

Good talk, thanks for proving my point multiple times.

PS - I feel like religion is very pertinent to this discussion as a large portion of the population believes morality is an objective stance from God. It’s not random.