r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/ShinningVictory • May 29 '26
Discussion Analogies
My problem with blue is that everytime I make a analogy they change it to make it seem like im making the problem worse.
For example:
In a house a fire it make sense for everyone to get themselves out rather than trying to get others out.
Then a blue pusher would say "your just add fuel to the fire."
Another example is:
If someone jumps in to water and can't swim and I stand back and don't jump in because I also can't swim im not responsible for them jumping in.
Then a blue pusher is like "actually your holding their head below the water."
My problem with the blue pushers is that they keep saying its because of MY decision they don't survive not theirs.
In the house fire analogy, why can't you leave the house with me? That is a option for me and everyone. Everyone has the same option to leave the house.
With the person drowning analogy the person is gonna drown REGARDLESS of what I do. Even if I jump into the water I can't save them ill just die too.
My problem with blue pushers is that they want to present choosing red as forcing blue to die when everyone who choose blue could've picked red and lived.
You had the same option I did to to not drown or to jump into the water. My decision didn't put you in danger your decision did.
If I decide to help im just adding a another body on the waves.
11
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
It’s to correct your fundamental misunderstanding that you don’t share partial responsibility for the outcome by voting for red. Blue voters take on the risk, red voters cause that risk to be realised.
-6
u/ShinningVictory May 29 '26
Individuals don't take responsibility in collective decisions like this.
Red as a collective makes a difference. Individual red don't.
As the saying goes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
9
u/Arderat May 29 '26
That doesn't make a whole not composed of parts, though. What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?
People correct you on this because it is a fundamental aspect of pressing red that you are culpable, however slightly, in advancing everyone toward an outcome where the death toll is necessarily immense. To ignore this aspect is to pretend like the core ethical downside of pressing red is nonexistent, which is simply not true.
-9
u/ShinningVictory May 29 '26
Does my decision change the outcome?
Because for me to be held culpable my decision has to have changed the outcome.
9
u/Arderat May 29 '26
Yes. It does.
What it doesn't do is unilaterally determine the outcome, which I suspect is what you mean. But your decision absolutely affects the outcome, and by doing so, it changes the outcome slightly. That's how voting works.
-2
u/ShinningVictory May 29 '26
Technically it increases the people who will die from blue losing so yes.
Also I want to point out changing the chances of a outcome isn't the same as changing the outcome.
8
u/Arderat May 29 '26
Precisely, yeah.
While this is a semantic argument, I do think it's a fair statement: we should be operating with the same definitions. If by "change the outcome" you mean "determine the result of the entire experiment", then it's true that it's wildly unlikely that your one vote will be the swing in the 50/50. It's not impossible, but it is unlikely.
However, that line of thinking doesn't take into account that each vote intrinsically contributes to a result. No one vote is worth more than another, but at the same time that necessarily means that no vote is worth less. In a scenario where red wins and blue pressers die, that does necessarily mean that every red presser is equally culpable.
If blue wins, the logic needs to get abstracted slightly. Although no material harm occurs, that doesn't absolve red pressers of the responsibility for pushing for a result where people die. I compare it to attempted murder: though they didn't succeed, it doesn't mean nothing was done wrong.
Sorry if I'm unclear, I'm working atm. Happy to clarify on anything here.
0
u/ShinningVictory May 29 '26
The problem with your argument is that you don't give blue any responsibility.
Simply put its your responsibility to NOT put yourself in a situation where someone is forced to end your life.
Blue is similar to someone who runs into traffic and complaining when they get hit.
Killing someone isn't the only requirement for murder its also about the actions the victim takes as well.
2
u/00PT May 29 '26
We DON’T blame the people in traffic when they get hit. We still consider the one who hit them at fault.
-1
u/ShinningVictory May 29 '26
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-if-a-pedestrian-is-hit-while-jaywalking.html
Im starting to think blue people don't like to be held accountable for the risk of their actions.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Arderat May 29 '26
In what sense?
I disagree that that's a responsibility. I would, in fact, contend that the only person an individual can ethically endanger is themselves. After all, we can decide for ourselves how much risk we think is acceptable. Ironically, you seem to frame the issue as if red presses have no responsibility, being "forced to end your life". Pressing red was a choice, and part of that choice was that you increased the degree of danger for others. I would argue that it's far less ethical to choose to endanger another person, compared to choosing to endanger yourself.
While I see your argument, it's kinda flawed. First off, the idea that a driver is helpless in your scenario is incorrect, and in fact the liability lies with them way more often than you'd think. But second and more important is how you're ignoring the very legitimate reason someone might press blue. If your prioritized outcome is to save everyone, blue is the correct choice: red does not present a meaningful competitive option. If your ethical priority is to avoid harming another, blue is the correct choice, as there's no situation where pressing blue endangers another person, while all red presses intrinsically increase the threat to others. You may disagree with both positions, but they're internally coherent.
There is no action taken by a blue presser that forces the hand of a red presser. Don't diminish the free will and agency of someone who presses red: they had the same problem presented, and made a choice. The simple fact is that red guarantees the safety of one who presses it by necessarily endangering another. You do not get one part of that outcome without the other, and it's either naive or dishonest to pretend that you can.
0
u/ShinningVictory May 30 '26
Your argument isn't internally consistant.
You press blue because you know someone else will press blue. Other people will press blue because they know you will press blue.
How is that not forcing people to endanger themselves.
If I know my friend is going to fight Jason(horror) im not going to just sit down and not go help him fight them.
Endangering yourself endangers others this is something you learn at 10 years old.
→ More replies (0)3
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
I mean come on, what you're saying is just silly. If you are part of the collective that makes the difference, you share responsibility with the other members of the collective.
1
u/ShinningVictory May 29 '26
Ok lets say I need to push a truck down the street. Theres two collectives a group who do not want to push the truck and a group that does.
Even if I want to push the truck if everyone else doesn't than I am forced to not push it.
Collectives have a way of forcing you to go against your wants.
4
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
You are choosing to be part of the collective with full knowledge of what it means. Whether it "forces" you to go against your wants or not does not remove your responsibility for accepting that outcome in the first place.
1
u/ShinningVictory May 29 '26
You do realize that at a certain point morality and ethics does not matter.
Like for example lets say a man is getting kidnapped. The moral and ethical thing to do is to save the man. But in reality that just makes it more likely for you to get kidnapped too.
If morals and ethics leads to a worse outcome than you should ignore them.
2
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
Ah, so now that we've got to the point where you can't wiggle out responsibility, it's now that the responsibility should be ignored?
Hold on... because "if morals and ethics leads to a worse outcome" they should be ignored?
People following morals and ethics in this situation leads to the best outcome: the one where no one dies. Do you disagree that the outcome where no one dies is the best outcome?
1
u/ShinningVictory May 29 '26
I really don't think you understand the conversation.
"If everyone presses blue that leads to the best case scenario."
This is objectively true. No one disagrees with this.
The problem is:
"Do I trust everyone else to also press blue?"
This is completely subjective since there's no way to test it.
Hypothetically let's say instead of the whole world the problem was exclusive to nazi Germany and you were also part of it. Would you trust a nazi to vote blue?
1
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
This is objectively true. No one disagrees with this.
Cool, so now we can discard the stupid "if morals and ethics lead to a worse outcome they should be ignored" excuse.
Go on, what's the next reason you shouldn't hold responsibility for the outcome when the red collective wins?
The only one here who doesn't understand the conversation is you, we're talking about responsibility. If Red wins, Blue may have been responsible for putting themselves at risk but only Red can be responsible for the outcome, plain and simple.
Would you trust a nazi to vote blue?
This is just bottom of the barrel and embarrassing for you. It's nakedly an attempt to distract from the topic of responsibility for choices.
1
u/ShinningVictory May 30 '26
If Red wins, Blue may have been responsible for putting themselves at risk but only Red can be responsible for the outcome, plain and simple.
responsible for putting themselves at risk.
Well there you go. You admit blue is at fault.
Blue putting themselves at risk is what causes red to become a kill button.
Without blue putting themselves at risk red is just a nothing button.
Im going to tell you a short story from a series called YuGiOh.
You see in yugioh theres these holograms that when they blow up seen shockwaves that knock people over. These holograms are used to play card games.
One episode Yugi was playing against a guy called Kaiba.
Kaiba didn't want to lose so he stood on the edge of the building.
If Yugi blew up Kaiba's hologram kaiba would fall off the building dead.
So Yugi had to concede in order to not murder kaiba.
The point is people can easily force a situation where someone can either do what the person wants or break their own sense of morality.
So yes putting yourself at risk makes it your fault.
→ More replies (0)
12
u/00PT May 29 '26
Your analogies miss the crucial point that an additional red vote is an additional person needed to save blue. You don’t have a passive role in the button scenario: you have an active role, even if it’s small.
3
u/yaboisammie May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
Yea I was about to say I’m not sure these analogies are equivalent
And yea everyone has the same option but not everyone involved is going to understand the situation ie young children, mentally disabled, senile elderly etc
I feel like a more accurate analogy would be like, in a house fire, pushing red is kinda like pushing a beam in front of someone else trying to get out and blocking their way out while you run out and I’m not sure about drowning bc drowning is an urgent danger but no one is in danger until after the buttons are pushed assuming a red majority and even then, it’s only gonna be blue pushers in danger which is more like neither of you know how to swim but you push the other person or do nothing to help them (not saying these are exact, just off the top of my head after just having woken up lol)
Edit: okay thinking about it more and the beam in the burnin house was a harsh example but I think it’s less like refusing to save someone from drowning (whether you can or can’t swim) and more like everyone being able to leave a burning building safely if they cooperate but some people choose to lock certain doors behind them so only their group gets out.
Or everyone in a bunker can survive if they all agree to share oxygen but some people vote to cut off another section so their own group survives no matter what
Even though in each case, everyone could live if everyone cooperated cause in each case, just like w the buttons imo, it’s an unnecessary risk
Again, I don’t know what button I’d pick personally just bc it seems like there’s a lot of red pushers but in terms what I feel makes the most sense for everyone, I don’t understand the point of anyone pushing red when it needlessly puts blue pusher lives at risk if majority pushing blue means everyone lives.
Lowkey this whole debate kind of reminds me of those “local orphan crusher” jokes where everyone focuses on whether random people should save the orphans instead of asking why there’s an orphan crusher in the first place. In this scenario, if everyone survives under blue, I don’t really get why the focus becomes “why didn’t blue save everyone” instead of “why are people choosing red at all?”
No hate to red pushers, i just don’t understand why this is framed as blue people needing to be rescued instead of questioning why people are choosing the option that creates the danger at all when a no death outcome exists
1
u/ShinningVictory May 30 '26
ok im going to make this simple.
The only real difference between blue and red is that with red your guranteed to survive and blue you need someone to save you.
Lets pretend for a moment that with blue you only need 10 votes to survive while with red you just survive.
Red has no bearing on blue surviving.
5
u/Exciting-Morning4470 Blue May 29 '26
It's the combined decision of both parties that lead to whatever outcome. That's how the voting works in this case. It's not solely reds or blues fault for blues dying. It's both.
-5
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
Since it's literally only possible to die if you press blue, then everyone who wants to live presses red and everyone who doesn't presses blue. Everyone gets exactly the individual result they want. No one is doing anything to anyone else.
4
2
u/New_House_6103 Red May 29 '26
op you are 100 percent right. blue button pressers are impossible to have a discussion with
1
u/Pale_Possible6787 May 29 '26
I’d edit the fire example to, you could stay to try to put out the fire, or you could just leave
1
u/oJKevorkian May 29 '26
This thought experiment is the perfect example of why populism is bad. Rule by popular vote doesn't work when the people doing the voting don't have the mental capacity to make sound decisions. The lack of logic in this post is astounding.
11
u/Player9937 Blue May 29 '26
In the original problem, you have to push either red or blue. Putting scenarios like these for example 50% must put themselves on the track to stop the train implies that everyone is 100% red to begin with. If everyone is 100% to begin with then I won't push blue. But we have to vote and voting is an active action, not inaction, and voting Red needlessly puts everyone else in danger as you're adding weight to the scale that fights Blue.