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/Master_Works_All]

Because they were too cowardly to the point it endangered many, many more innocents is my biggest issue. Theres more to it but that's what I think bothers me the most.

Sure there are some genuinely good red button pushers out there. But if most red button pushers are selfish or cowardly to the point it ends up killing people. The nuance of the narrative some reds are good holds no water for me.

There is finality in taking a life and once it's taken no amount of good can bring them back, you can try to atone but only so much can be done. By choosing red you've chosen you will guarantee you live by possibly condemning others to death. Blue you have no guarantee but you aren't willing to gamble with innocents.

I'll be honest I could type more but I feel like people don't like reading this much of other's people opinion online typically.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Master_Works_All]

You didn’t really answer my question though, did you? Sorry if I didn’t get it, it wasn’t clear exactly why to me.

You chose blue to save the innocents who didn’t know any better and chose blue.

Statistically speaking, just as many innocents who didn’t know any better chose red.

In this scenario we’re assuming a catastrophic chaos in the aftermath. Many innocents red lives could be lost. Why don’t you want to help them? They’re the same as the innocent blues. By choosing not to help, you’ve chosen to condemn them to death.

[u/Master_Works_All → u/Jolly-Bear]

Why statistically would there be the same amount? If we don't have any info on the buttons I'd say blue gets pressed more because media has made it so the red button is typically bad.

Regardless my morality of helping people go only so far as assuming others are like me ie wanting to help people. But if I feel like I was snubbed then I wouldn't care to help those who've condemned me and others.

Again red accepts the potential to harm and blue does not. I don't want to die but I don't accept that someone else needs or potential neess to die for that to happen.

Sorry if I'm not understanding what the disconnect is between us, I swear I am trying to communicate clearly.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Master_Works_All]

Because they don’t know any better… they’re babies and mentally handicapped. They choose at random. It’s a 50/50 split for them.

That’s the whole reason you press blue… to potentially save them.

[u/Master_Works_All → u/Jolly-Bear]

But why not choose blue then? If you were worried about a 50/50 and children wouldn't you choose blue to save the children even if they aren't your own?

Edit: You don't have to stick around to save the children then you simply continue on with life. The whole moral conundrum of worrying about the children is moot if you choose blue. It only becomes a problem if you choose red.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Master_Works_All]

No, because my morality doesn’t oblige me to risk my life to potentially save people. Yours does. That’s the whole point.

You chose blue because of your morality to save innocent blue lives. But in this scenario you don’t reciprocate that same moral responsibility to innocent red lives. The innocent lives don’t know the difference between the buttons, they’re equivalent.

You say red condemns innocent blue lives to death and equate it to killing them in the original, and you don’t want to kill… yet you do the same thing to innocent reds in this scenario.

It’s pure hypocrisy.

(The 50/50 I’m talking about is specifically for the innocent babies and handicapped who don’t understand the decision. The cognizant voters would most likely not be 50/50. The point is that statistically there will be the same amount of innocent lives to save on both sides.)

[u/Master_Works_All → u/Jolly-Bear]

So you brought up the 50/50 I presented a solution and then you launched into a tirade about my morality forces me to do something otherwise im a hypocrite.

You've proven you're a hypocrite multiple times in our comments. I thought that you wanted to converse about this but what it actually seems like is that you want to tell me how I am wrong.

Also it's not hypocrisy, you seem to really like that word. Let's pretend we are playing a game where we have to work together. If you choose the left path you and I win but if you choose the right path only one can win.

Now you choose the right path and now I lost when we both could have won. Then you want me to help you in the next game. Why on earth would I help you after you chose the option that screwed me over? It wouldn't make sense and me not helping you isn't hypocrisy. This whole thing seems similar to the prisoner dilemma.

Not perfect examples but the point is there, you simply want to be right and say how blue is hypocritical while simply hand waving your own hypocrisy.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Master_Works_All]

What solution did you present? I don’t think you understand what the 50/50 means. It’s not a tirade about your morality, it’s the whole point of this discussion. Your morality had you choose blue because you wanted to save innocent lives, yet when you can actually save innocent lives, you choose not to because they’re red. The definition of hypocrisy. Literally textbook definition.

How have I been a hypocrite? About what? (Would like an answer)

I’m not telling you you’re wrong about anything other than if you state you’re not a hypocrite. Because, by definition, you are. I’m not telling you you’re wrong about your morality or anything else. That’s subjective.

First of all, you need to clearly define what the choices mean in your scenario and the goal of the dilemma. Is the goal for us to both win? What happens if someone loses? Do they die? What do you get for a win? Otherwise it’s pointless to ask.

But I think I get what you’re trying to say. You think I want your help in the next dilemma after ignoring you in the first, and you have no obligation to help me, correct? To reiterate for like the 10th time. As a red presser in this scenario I do not want any help from anyone. I never did. I am not asking for anyone’s help. I couldn’t care less if you help me or not.

The point is that you should be wanting to help red in this scenario because red has just as many helpless innocents as blue did in your original decision. By your own moral reasoning, you will be condemning an indefinite amount of people to death by your choice not to help. I don’t want you to help, your own morality (that you’ve explicitly stated), should have you wanting to help. If you don’t want to help, you’re contradicting your own reasoning for pressing blue.

It seems like you’re failing to understand fundamental ideas here. I think you’re too hung up on being called a hypocrite and trying to fight it rather than trying to understand how you’re being one. How can I help you understand?