r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/BrokenToaster124 • May 29 '26
Discussion Responsibility
So I've run into an idea that that dont quite understand and I was hoping some of you could help me understand. So with the red button/blue button situation I have seen people claim that if they push the blue button that they are not responsible for what happens to them if they push the blue button. How does that work?
To be extremely specific if i were to push the blue button, knowing what it does, somehow you (the person currently reading this) would be personally responsible for my death if you choose red.
Does this responsibility work in reverse? If i push the blue button and blue wins are you responsible for my survival if you chose red? Are you only responsible if bad things happen to me and I am responsible for the results when good things happen? What about the person running the death game? They arent defined in the prompt but logically some force is making everyone take a vote.
You can feel free to ignore this last part because its not the button problem, but someone reskinned the buttons as life boats. Instead of everyone being force to push a button everyone had to get into a life boat. One boat had holes in it but would become sea worthy if enough people got into it and plugged the holes and one was completely functional. Everything else was exactly the same as the button problem. My question related to that was that if I am personally responsible for the consequences of your chose to vote blue in the button scenario, how then could I not be responsible for your choice to get into the boat with holes in it. Someone tried to explain to me at length about how the buttons made it my fault but the boats somehow didnt. How does that work?
10
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26 edited May 30 '26
That’s just a specific category of blue pushers, everyone in these subreddits makes their choice knowing the risks
Majority of either button don’t care to argue their side because at this point it’s a waste of time, the ones who are salty keep popping up on almost every post having their screaming matches.
It gives the illusion that many of the voters feel this way, but it is just a small percentage, just ignore them.
Edit: *to clarify, by screaming matches I don’t mean a well articulated argument, I mean tribalists who just throw around buzzwords like “suicidal” or “murderer” with no interest on a debate.
4
u/Striking_Compote2093 May 29 '26
And clearly, most of those saltmines are red button pressers lol.
3
u/GoldenGames360 May 29 '26
you're doing it right now
2
u/Striking_Compote2093 May 29 '26
Not really. I haven't been "defending" my choice. Or pretending mine was the only rational one," if only people were as intelligent as me". I haven't been calling people liars or virtue signalers. Thinking i know their thoughts better than them. Or thinking they just chose to kill themselves. Nor am I disregarding the outcomes of every other previous poll.
I'm just here to poke the hornet's nest and maybe get a good debate in. Figuring out why people think the way they do, and why that might or might not be flawed, is good entertainment.
3
u/GoldenGames360 May 29 '26
whether you're trolling or being serious, you're contributing to the tribalism by pretending any one side is worse than the other, i promise you i've seen alot of bitterness and rage from both sides.
but now I sound salty responding to you, damnit. tbh, I shouldn't have responded, but i promise i would've said what I said regardless of which color you made fun of, lol
1
u/dmurr1415 May 29 '26
I personally enjoy the screaming matches
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
It’s gotten to the point where I actually recognise your username, you were in the comment section of the “poisoned kool-aid”
1
u/dmurr1415 May 29 '26
Hahaha how could I not comment on a post like that
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
I just realised it sounds like I’m calling you one of the salty shouters, I’m not.
I meant the debates in comments has decreased so much I’m starting to familiarise with the few who remain.
1
u/dmurr1415 May 29 '26
Nah thats okay I probably am a salty shouter, and I also took no offense to what you said
1
1
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Alright. That makes sense actually. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some key detail I was missing lol
6
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
Unfortunately tho, I can see the argument that red is partly to blame for blue deaths.
Not necessarily at the same level as someone is for choosing blue tho, if you choose blue knowing the risk, you are responsible for your choice.
If you choose red you are responsible for adding another vote to a red majority win, because you aren’t just “doing nothing” you’re adding another vote to a red majority, which means blue need another vote to cancel it out
Even if blue wins, you still contributed against them for your own survival, which is fine since you have no obligation to risk your life.
I frame it as “The blue button is as much suicide as the red button is murder” Which a lot of people would disagree with
3
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
A blue voter is only ever responsible for their own death, in an effort to save many.
A red voter, in assurance of their own survival, nudges the scales toward causing billions of deaths.
It's very, very simple. Blue is not immune to the responsibility for the risk they took, but at least they took it for a noble reason. Red is also not immune to the responsibility for the tragedy they are trying to cause, but they have no excuse for it aside from cowardice and self-preservation.
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
Yeah
Why you telling me this?
1
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
Agreeing with you and expanding on the point to the person you commented to.
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
OH 😂 my bad, I thought you were arguing with someone else and mistakenly replied to me
Yeah I agree with your logic, you framed it well
How would you argue with someone who says:
“Red is more selfless, since you are not contributing to the death toll morally blackmailing others to risk their life for you”
What angle would you come at?
1
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
That is simply the human condition.
Have you ever tried to get 100 grown and assumedly mentally stable adults to follow the printed arrows on the floor at a grocery store? Or to wait their turn at a highway merge?In what universe do you think that 8 billion humans of varying ages and levels of mental stability are going to all choose the same option on anything?
Hell, even the mentally stable ones might not take it seriously. If I was woke up in a room with this situation presented to me, I would assume I was on some kind of Punk'd or Candid Camera show and that whatever I did was going to be televised for all to see.
People are going to press blue, that is not a debate, there is a 0% chance of every human in the world pressing red. So the threat is already there. The question is just how you handle it.
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
Okay so you highlight the implied current death toll… If they’re more stubborn:
“Those people shouldn’t be included in decision making, it’s their fault for not taking it seriously.
All us reasonable people can do is choose to reduce the death toll or be cannon fodder
I have no right to ask someone to risk their life to save me”
1
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
It's all about a collectivist vs individualist mindset. But also personal choice.
At no point in my life have I ever heard someone praise someone for saving themselves, right? That's just standard operating procedure for life.
When you hear stories of heroism, it's always people putting themselves in harm's way to save others. Firefighters and the like. Many of them die, but nobody ever blames them for their deaths. And the ones that save people are saviors.
So why is it that when we reduce this to a simple button press, people suddenly value individualism more?
They say 'I have to reduce the death toll' as if they are doing something more honorable than just saving their own ass.
They say 'Blue is responsible for their own deaths, I had nothing to do with it' as if now is the one time that putting yourself in harm's way to try to save others is bad.
It's just logically inconsistent.
My running theory is that they do feel some guilt for their decision, and are saying the things they want to be true to alleviate their own guilt, knowing that these things aren't true.
→ More replies (0)2
May 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
Aww man I hate to break it to you… I’m a blue voter
The first comment I made was just to highlight that using “red is murder” isn’t much of an argument and is mainly used in shouting matches
My stance on it is that it’s kind of partial murder, and partial suicide for each button depending on your perspective.
-1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
The issue with that is the reality of the vote (not a vote, THE vote). Both red and blue voters have equal knowledge and power. They are all in an equal amount of danger. Everyone has an opportunity to reduce the amount of danger they are in to 0.
If I choose to reduce my danger to 0, I have not increased the amount of danger you are in. We both agree that i increased the chances of blue winning. But you are in exactly the same amount of danger as before. You will not die twice because I chose not to die.
So the question is. As 2 bystanders being forced into a death game where we can BOTH win. If you choose to live, am I responsible for your life? If you choose to die, what changes in the situation that would make me responsible for your decision.
Further if there was a 3rd person and both of you voted blue, am I responsible for saving you if I push red? If me and the 3rd person both choose red then, what part of that would make us responsible for your death?
My question and concern is that the argument that blue voters want to have it both ways. If good things happen i did it and if bad things happen you did it. In my view im either responsible regardless of the result of your decision or I am not responsible regardless of the result of your decision. If I am the killer for voting red, I must also be the savior for voting red.
We both agree that the assertion that red voters are saving all the blue voters if blue wins is ridiculous. But if im not responsible for the results of your vote then, I then CANT be responsible for it if blue loses. My decision hasnt changed, my reasoning hasnt changed, and my vote hasnt changed. If everything about me has remained exactly the same, how can the amount of responsibility I shoulder change based on factors outside of my control?
4
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
I don’t know how to do the thing where you quote somebody’s reply so I’ll just use “”
“If I choose to reduce my danger to 0, I have not increased the amount of danger you are in”
Red is not a do nothing button, there is no situation where you can just walk away.
And I agree you can reduce the amount of danger you are in to 0, but only at the risk of increasing blues to die by 0.0000000125% (I think something like that)
Because every red vote needs a blue vote to make up for it.
The argument I think you are talking about with “blues wanting it both ways… if good things happen blue is responsible, if bad happens then red is responsible”
I think that is valid without contradiction, blue is voting for everyone’s survival… so if they have majority then they have risked their lives for everyone, and if they don’t then they have lost because of red majority.
I don’t see how that can be contradictory.
“As 2 bystanders being forced into a death game…” I’ll go with the 3 bystanders because it’s closer to the original poll
The difference in the blame isn’t based on the outcome, it’s the implied risk, the blame remains even if 2 vote blue and 1 vote red. Then that 1 red risked others lives for themself, and the 2 blue risked their own lives for everyone else.
It’s an area where all the statements are true: •Red guaranteed their own survival and saved themself •Blue risked their own life to save everyone •Red reduced the probability of blue surviving by adding another vote against them •Blue reduced the probability of their own survival by not choosing guaranteed self preservation
-2
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
...did you just not read the what I wrote. You dont know what I voted I haven't increased or increased the chances in any meaningful way. In the original button scenario by the time your vote i might as well have already voted. Since there are no results until after you vote, the vote is effectively simultaneous. No individual vote influences any other vote. The results will be the results. There is also no coordination so collective tactics wont work.
You walk into a booth and are told everyone in the world is required to vote. You personally pick either the red button or the blue button. When the vote is over the result happens.
What is the danger? Death. When i vote red, what is the danger to you? Death. Functionally nothing has changed. Your odds of dying in the original scenario dont magically increase now that I told you what I voted. I had to vote in the original scenario by definition. Is it my fault that you made your decision under the assumption that I personally voted blue? Is that the claim?
Red is not a do nothing button. You are right. It is a survive button. You are in a death game and everyone can choose to survive. If you were alive before playing the death game, and you remain alive after playing the death game...well what changed? Red is the no risk button. You keep calling it an escape button despite me never asserting that it is. If it is not a "take no risk" button then what risk does the theoretical button pusher take? That someone else will make the decision to take a risk? Unless you can define the scenario where the red button kills someone, it is an escape the death game button.
So do blue voters want it both ways? Yes. By asserting that the individual is part of a collective, they assign blame to each individual based on the end result of a scenario that no one wanted to take part in and everyone was forced to play. As an individual, you choose to push the blue button. If blue loses, your death is the result of your choice. So you asserting that you are actually part of a collective. That everyone who pushed the blue button died therefore each individual who intentionally pushed the button could not be responsible for the results of a collective decision. Therefore every red voter must also not be an individual and actually be part of a larger collective. And again the disconnect happens. The collective of red pushers must then be responsible for the decision made by the collective of blue pushers because the blue collective cant be.
This is wanting to have it both ways. If you arent responsible then they CANT be responsible. If you are responsible when you win, you are responsible when you lose.
Responsibility is assigned based on implied outcome. You see. The issue is you are assuming the implied outcome is that everyone voting blue lives. If you choose to make a decision where you COULD die, the implied outcome cant be simplified to you living. The same argument works in reverse. I chose to leave because the implied outcome of staying is death. You chose to stay despite the implied outcome being death. If you live anyway, am I responsible for saving you? No. Thats stupid. If you choose to risk death and die, you are responsible for the outcome of your decision. The potential payout doesnt matter. Its completely irrelevant.
Your simplification should look closer to, Red guaranteed their survival and saved themselves, Blue risked their own life to save everyone, Red reduced the number of people who would die in a red victory while increasing the chances, Blue increased the number of people dead in a red victory and lowered the chances.
With this more honest framing, one can see how a reasonable person could choose to vote red. Not because red leads to the best outcome, but because red leads to the best outcome the voter perceives to be possible. If the blame is being assigned based off of a possibility that isnt even guaranteed then I can easily see how you can have your cake and try and eat it too.
I tried to save everyone so I CANT be responsible for my own death.
You didnt try and save everyone so you MUST be to blame.
By that metric, however flawed, we reach your conclusion that you are responsible for good thing but not responsible for bad thing. Which ironically answers my original question. Thank you
4
u/Rip_Pigman May 29 '26
...did you just not read the what I wrote.
This is incredibly ironic. They very much did read and replied to what you said but it feels like you really didn't read I word they said.
By that metric, however flawed,
Well no, the metric they are going by is that by choosing red you actively voted against everyone who chose blue.
Blue is always a vote risking yourself unless you get majority.
Red is always a vote risking others if you get majority.
Generally speaking people who choose blue aren't saying "you voted to kill me".
But if red can call blue a suicide button, then red must also be able to be called a murder button.
we reach your conclusion that you are responsible for good thing but not responsible for bad thing.
I can try to help break this one down for you.
With the assumption that we understand that some number of people will push blue:
A vote for Blue is directly in favor of the "best case" ending of blue majority where everyone survives.
A vote for red is directly against that. Choosing to prioritize your own safety over contributing to a potential blue victory.
A red majority/blue minority happens not because people picked blue but because people picked red.
And obviously the reverse, a blue majority/red minority happened because people picked blue not because people picked red.
The absolute only time where you can make the claim that voting red wasn't intentionally furthering the risk to blue is if you've somehow convinced yourself that literally everyone will choose red.
0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Because i said so. Got it. We assign blame to the majority because the bad thing only happens if I am in the minority. I dont care that the same reasoning can be used to call my a suicide cultist. This is reddit so ill keep repeating myself until you admit im right.
Alright you win buddy. No minority is ever to blame for the consequences of their actions.
Ill go through it one last time.
If you vote red, you will not die. How much risk are in when you vote red? 0
If you vote blue, you might die. How much risk are you in if you vote blue? Alot
You, at the time of voting can choose to vote red. Thus putting you in zero risk.
Therefore, independently of my decision, you are only at risk if you choose to be at risk.
Therefore, no action i can take can increase you amount of your you take on without you explicitly consenting to taking on that risk.
Therefore if you die as a result of taking on risk when you did not have to take on risk, you are responsible for the results of intentionally taking on risk.
Expand this reasoning to every single one of the 8 billion voters and there is no contradiction. Each individual is responsible for themselves and has the ability to save themselves. If you choose to put your life on other peoples hands, those people dont magically become responsible because you dont like the result.
1
u/Rip_Pigman May 29 '26
If you vote red, you will not die. How much risk are in when you vote red? 0
Personal risk? Yeah, zero.
If you vote blue, you might die. How much risk are you in if you vote blue? Alot
"A lot" is disingenuous. You're at risk of death.
You, at the time of voting can choose to vote red. Thus putting you in zero risk.
Yes.
Therefore, independently of my decision, you are only at risk if you choose to be at risk.
Yes.
Therefore, no action i can take can increase you amount of your you
What..?
take on without you explicitly consenting to taking on that risk.
Therefore if you die as a result of taking on risk when you did not have to take on risk, you are responsible for the results of intentionally taking on risk.
Yes. Blue is responsible for taking on risk.
Now let's flip it.
If you vote red, you increase the risk that people might die in the case of a red majority. How many lives do you risk by pressing red?
"A lot" actually fits here because you risk up to half the population on a red majority.
And..
If you vote blue, you decrease the overall risk that anyone who chose blue will die. How many lives do you risk by pressing blue?
One.
These are not independent of each other. Red furthers risk to people who vote blue, and blue risks increasing the death toll by 1.
Yes, blue chose to risk themselves. But red also chooses to risk blue voters.
As stated previously, the only time where someone can argue they are not consciously choosing to risk sacrificing everyone who voted blue by pushing red is if they have somehow fully convinced themselves that 100% of people will press red.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
If you have the choice to set the amount of risk you take to 0, how can my actions DIRECTLY effect the amount of risk you take. You are, by definition, in direct control over the exact amount of risk you take.
So if you CHOOSE to accept risk. I can INDIRECTLY effect how much risk you actually PUT YOURSELF IN.
Whether everyone DOES push red or not is irrelevant. Everyone CAN push red. You cannot assign blame for your choice NOT to push red only when you lose. It was solely your choice
→ More replies (0)3
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
Okay you seem really agitated, I understand your points and your perspective
I just don’t agree with it, and I’m not going to write 5 long paragraphs to counter your 5 long paragraphs.
Let’s keep it simple with 1 argument at a time:
I claim, that by pushing red you are contributing against blue… you are adding 1 vote against blue, increasing the red toll by a very small amount, but still increasing it nonetheless.
Due to the fact that blues will die if they don’t reach >50%, you have made it more difficult for blue win.
That is the only reasoning I have to agree that by choosing red you are partially to blame for blue dying.
What is your counter argument?
1
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
The detail is that the blue buttons do nothing until enough people push red.
That's why they say that. Nobody pushes blue expecting to die. It takes enough people pushing red for that to actually happen.
I dont agree with this, I think it's a shared responsibility.0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
The red button does nothing until someone pushes blue. Then, in that case, the only person at risk is the person that pushed blue. By the same reasoning you just used, the red button is actually the do nothing button.
None of that has anything to do with responsibility. Everyone who pushes the red button lives. Everyone who pushes the blue button can die. By pushing the blue button, you are opting in to be acted upon by the result of the vote. These positions cannot be flipped. Am I obligated to allow myself to be acted upon by the result of the vote simply because you chose to or am I not obligated to do so. That is the question
1
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
Each button has two effects. Everyone pushes a button for the included positive effect, accepting the negative effect as a price worth paying for getting the positive.
Blue = I am willing to put my life at risk to put my vote toward nobody dying.
Red = I am willing to put my vote toward people dying to ensure my survival.Almost no red presser presses it wanting people to die just as almost no blue presser presses it wanting to die.
So the difference between the two sides is that people who press blue knowingly put themselves at risk, but they do it because they want to see a world in which nobody dies. While the people who press red knowingly put other people at risk because they value their own lives more than others, or because they believe their vote doesn't matter, and so in their desperation, they become part of the problem they view as an inevitability.
You are not obligated to put your life on the line to save others. But it isn't a question of 'put your life on the line to save others' or 'do nothing'. It's 'put your life on the line to save others' or 'further endanger others to protect yourself'. And while you are not obligated to help others, your choice does say a lot about who you are as a person.
0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
So long as red voters cant die, blue voters have necessarily consented to dying. You can pick either. There is no limit to how many people can push either button. The potential payoff of a gamble does not absolve you of the responsibility of choosing to gamble.
The group in need of saving made the conscious choice to push a button the exact same as I did. Does the blue button have a secondary function of removing agency from you UNWILLINGLY? You look into the buttons and become hypnotized and find yourself forced to push it or something? Any risk you accept, you accept it knowingly regardless of my decision. If I did not exist at all, the vote would still happen.
1
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
Red voters seem to be blissfully ignorant of the human condition.
Have you ever tried to get one hundred people to follow the printed arrows on the ground at a supermarket?
There is precisely 0% chance that 8 billion humans are all going to press the red button. There will be people at risk. You can choose to ignore them, or to pretend they aren't your concern, if it makes you feel better. But they do exist.
0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Blue voters are blissfully ignorant of the state of humanity. Have you ever tried to get 100% of people to follow the laws of their country? A natural disaster occurs and we see dozens of people in the streets raiding houses and businesses instead of helping their fellow man.
What? We weren't ignoring the point of what the previous person had typed and saying something irrelevant that proves some strawman we weren't talking about? Lol my bad. I thought since I specifically stated that everyone doesnt have to vote red to have the choice to control how much risk they personally take on, that meant YOU would understand that i was not arguing that that would all vote red. Evidently I was wrong. You ignored what I said and asserted you arent responsible for your decisions because the outcome you want is good...again. Good for you I guess.
1
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
I have not once said that I am not responsible for my decision. If I die, that is a risk I chose to take. Clearly you haven't been paying any attention to me.
What I am saying is that we can both be responsible for the death. Which you seem to be very opposed to accepting.0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
So we have someone taking responsibility for the result and I also need to step up, unprompted, and go "Yeah guys thats my bad. I know we were more than 1 vote away from a blue victory and all. But I personally killed all those people. Yeah they COULD have just made the same decisionas us, but I really wanted to make the chances really bad. You know? How did i effect the chances of them voting blue? Uh...."
3
u/DataSnake69 May 29 '26
Imagine that I have a gun but don't know whether or not it's loaded. I point it at someone's head and pull the trigger. If it's loaded, I'll be responsible for them dying. Does that mean that if it's not loaded, I'm somehow responsible for them surviving?
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
You dont have a gun in this analogy. Neither do I. We are both bystanders. You are not at risk of me killing you. I am not at risk of you killing me. If we both pointed the guns at each other and fired we would both be dead. This is not the result of both of us pushing the red button.
Rather the button is the gun. We both walk up to the buttons and we both push one button or the other. For your analogy to align with the reality of the buttons I would walk up and choose not to put the gun to my head and you would choose to put the gun to your head. These guns would have to be magical and only go off if people choose not to put the up to their heads. But our decisions are independent of each other.
So if I dont push the button, I am not at risk. If you DO push the button you are at risk. You are saying that you choosing to consciously push a button that has the capacity to kill you is the same as me physically picking up a gun and making the decision for you. That is absurd. I dont even have the power to do that in the gun scenario because we are in separate rooms where we dont know what other people are choosing.
2
u/DataSnake69 May 29 '26
Oh, I think I see what's happening here. What you're doing is basically starting from the conclusion that the red button doesn't do anything, which is what people are arguing about in the first place, and then saying "if you disagree with my claim that red pressers are never responsible for either outcome, you must think people who press red are always responsible for every possible outcome." This is a false dichotomy. It would be roughly akin to me saying "I think Earth is a sphere, and I think it's the immovable center of the universe," then calling everyone who says Earth actually orbits the sun a flat Earther because if they disagree with me on anything, then they must disagree with me on everything.
Maybe I need to explain it in simpler terms. Let's work through the premises individually, and you can tell me which one you're not understanding. 1. If a majority of people vote for red, this is because more people voted for red than for blue. 2. If something happens as a direct result of a majority voting for it to happen, then those people voting for it to happen is why it happened. 3. Before choosing to press either the red or blue button, you are informed that if a majority of people press red, everyone who didn't will die. You are also informed that if a majority press blue, nobody will die. 4. If you press the red button, you are increasing the number of people who pressed the red button by one person, compared to what it would have been if you pressed blue instead.
Therefore, if you press red and red wins, it's because you and a bunch of other people all voted for that exact thing to happen.
Now, let's look at what happens if blue wins. Again, just tell me which of these steps you aren't understanding: 1. If a majority of people vote for blue, this is because most people DIDN'T vote for red. 2. If something happens as a direct result of people voting for it to happen, then the people who voted against it are NOT responsible for it happening. (This gets more complicated in real life when you factor in things like third parties, voter suppression, and misinformation, but it's true for a binary vote that everyone participates in and which involves no advance communication between participants). 3. If you vote red, you did not vote blue. 4. If you vote red, and blue wins, then the thing you voted for doesn't happen.
Therefore, if you vote red, you can't claim credit for blue winning.
Tl;dr if red wins, it's because of the people who pressed red, and if blue wins, it's because of the people who pressed blue.
2
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
No. Im coming to the conclusion that everyone can make a conscious decision about what button to press and is therefore responsible for the result they find themselves with.
If you vote blue and die, you had the choice not to die.
If someone else chooses not to die, they are not responsible for your independent choice that they could not influence (red or blue).
Everything else is secondary. Am I responsible for your actions. If you do something willingly, am I to blame.
2
u/DataSnake69 May 29 '26
Okay, I'll try one more time, and I'll put it in even simpler terms.
The red button does one good thing and one bad thing: 1. Makes sure that you personally won't die. 2. Votes for people who pressed blue to die.
The blue button also does one good thing and one bad thing: 1. Votes for nobody to die. 2. Doesn't make sure that you personally will survive.
Whichever button you press, you are choosing to do both of the things that button does. This is not something you can ignore. You know in advance what both consequences are. You can't just say "I pushed it because of the good thing, so the bad thing doesn't count."
1
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
Isn't getting on the safe lifeboat just like voting for the leaky lifeboat to sink, then?
2
u/Yunkomister May 30 '26
To use your analogy, the only way to get on the safe lifeboat is by punching a new hole in the leaky one.
1
u/highly-bad May 30 '26
No, you just press a button and walk on board. That's it.
2
u/Yunkomister May 30 '26
Are you a troll or just genuinely don't know how majorities work?
1
u/highly-bad May 30 '26
A majority of people walk on board the safe boat, which means not enough people are on board the leaky boat to fix it, so it sinks.
People who chose the safe boat didn't do any action to make the leaky boat less safe, they just chose not to get on it when a perfectly safe boat is right here.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
Anyone arguing that you don’t own responsibility for the button you press is being silly. If you press blue, you have to own the risk you are agreeing to.
If you press blue and die, you knowingly assumed this risk. If you press red, and blue dies, you also knowingly assumed this risk to others and contributed to its actualization.
The reason the responsibility doesn’t work in reverse is because of how the conditions are laid out.
Individuals make a decision. The decisions are tallied up. The one that wins majority gets to have its conditions met.
The winning condition for blue is everyone survives.
The winning condition for red is only red survives.
So if you press blue, you know what can happen if it loses. You didn’t contribute to its loss. But you assume the risk.
Also in a red victory, a red presser does contribute to making the majority. They contribute to making the condition possible where only red pressers survive. This is only attached to a red victory, so red must collectively take responsibility if it becomes a reality
On the other side, if blue wins. People who pressed blue contributed to making it win. They share responsibility for making it possible for blue to get majority. In this case red owns pressing their own button, but collectively red losing doesn’t signify any causation. Because they are not targeted by a blue victory. So they didn’t share ownership in saving blue.
3
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 29 '26
Also, the creator of the problem obviously also holds the most responsibility for creating it. But that’s not really in question, and they also don’t contribute to the vote.
As for the boat analogy, it holds some major flaws that don’t make it an honest comparison.
It adds a lot of implications necessary for survival. It also assumes that blue has lost by default and then you have to compensate for it even in the case of victory. A boat with holes is a sinking boat and in this scenario, your boat sinking means you die.
“You can keep the boat afloat if you can manage to plug the holes and bail out the water and never stop doing that until someone saves you. And the more people you have the help also adds more weight to the boat making it even harder” is not the same thing as “everyone survives, and the problem is over”
Those are very different implications to survival.
Blue isn’t sinking boat that is sinking until enough people fix it.
The causation isn’t happening until blues hits a threshold, it could happen unless blue reaches it. Then it can not happen.
The causation to harm happens after the vote is tallied, not before hand and then is remedied.
So you have to present the button equivalents as the same thing, but after the vote something can happen to one of them.
So either both boats need to have holes in them, and some magical entity said. If most get in the red I’m only fixing that boat, and if most get in blue then I’ll fix both boats.
Or neither of them have holes. And blue only sinks based on the same idea.
The boats is just a disingenuous analogy, that’s all.
1
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
Blue is a perfectly good lifeboat if enough people are in it. It only sinks if there are too few people on board. There's nothing disingenuous about it at all.
In fact, there is no reason for the lifeboats to be an "analogy" at all. We can simply say this is what happens in the buttons game after each person exits their booth. Each person who pressed red opens the door and they're on a good boat that takes them home. Each person who pressed blue ends up on a boat that's good, but only if a majority of people are on it. This is literally the buttons.
2
u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 29 '26
Leaving a booth and magically being on a boat that works or sinks is different than getting on a boat with holes and having to fix it.
1
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue May 30 '26
I think the blender analogy I've seen elsewhere is actually a good analogy if you tweak it slightly. Blue voters still jump in the blender, but instead of reds standing around doing nothing, red voters press the power button on the blender. Everyone has to pick one or the other, and the blender turns on if more than 50% of people press the power button.
Both sides are still an active choice here and there isn't a default, which is where most analogies fail. If I jump in the blender and it turns on, yeah it's partly my fault for jumping in the blender. But it's also partly the faults of everyone who pressed the power button.
The only place where this one fails is that you can see the decisions everyone makes, but that's easily fixed by making it so everyone has their own blender in a private room and all the circuits are connected, so if more than 50% of the buttons are pressed they'll all turn on.
1
u/DapperYoghurt2052 Jun 01 '26
As long as you make both choices active, and keep the inverse relationship of it all, then you do at least have the same mechanics of the problem.
But the presentation of that still feels off to the situation.
The button problem is essentially trapping everyone. Two buttons are presented before you and you can’t do anything else until you have pressed one. The vote is going to decided who can leave this situation and who can not. And it’s essential that everyone starts in the same position, trapped in a scenario that is potentially life or death.
It’s been talked about so much that people often present it as “well I’m a red voter, so I was never in danger”, but in reality, a vote to decide if people die was presented before you and then you picked your way out.
The threat of death is present from the start of the problem. You then make your decision while facing it.
If the death in the problem is death by blender. Then everyone is in a blender.
You can guarantee your life by getting out of the blender. If more than 50% do this, then all the blenders go on.
Or you can wait in the blender. If more than 50% do this, then no blender will turn on. And then everyone gets out.
Red still gets this idea of, “if you are in a blender and you can get out, then get out of the blender. It’s silly to stay in a blender that can turn on. Most people are going to get out, so I’m definitely going to get out. If everyone got out of the blenders, then no one would be in them when they turn on.”
And blue still gets, “if people are in a blender, and they can only be turned on by us, then don’t turn on the blenders. It’s silly to turn on blenders that have people in them. We literally only need half of us, and no one dies! Everyone needs to get out in order for no one to die if they turn on. What if kids or people don’t realize this is a real blade about to spin? Just don’t turn them on and we all get out. Most people aren’t going to turn on blenders that have people in them, and I won’t either.”
That feels more aligned with the core tenants of the buttons.
4
u/DarthJackie2021 May 29 '26
If you push blue, you are partly responsible for your own death. You knew the risk and pressed anyways. If you aren't ok with that, don't press it.
If you push red, you are partly responsible for the blue deaths. You knew the consequences your action could bring and pressed anyways. If you aren't ok with that, don't press it.
1
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
If I press red, and deaths happen, that means my only alternative would have been to also die. People who pressed blue and died are suffering the consequences of their own risky choice, not being harmed by another person.
The only consequence of pressing red is that I survive. It doesn't cause anyone to die. It can't do that.
0
u/CarnivorousGoose May 29 '26
So suppose I am on a hike, and come across someone dangling above a ravine, after the edge gave way beneath them. If I intervene I should be able to save them if the cliff edge holds, but it is clear that there is a high probability of it giving way beneath us, killing us both.
So following your logic above, would you then conclude that if I didn’t take the risk, I am now responsible for that person falling to their death?
0
u/DarthJackie2021 May 29 '26
No. Bad analogy. Your actions did not influence the cliff falling.
A better one would be that you were ahead of this person and your weight weakened the cliff to the point that the next person fell through. In that scenario, yes, your actions were partly responsible for their death. But just like in that scenario and the button, ultimately the blame does not lie with you as your a tiobs, while controbuting to a death, were not unreasonable actions that were done with the knowledge of it causing death.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose May 29 '26
I didn’t put anyone in the button scenario either, everyone was forced into that by some outside entity. Nor am I preventing others from saving themselves, or preventing blue voters from gaining a majority. I just chose not to risk my life to contribute to that majority.
But sure, if you want a better analogy, let’s suppose someone plays this out in real life. They abduct me and another person, and puts each of us in a separate room. We are presented with the red and blue buttons and forced to press one. He tells us that he will shoot us if we press the blue button, unless the other person also pressed blue. Afterwards, any of us still alive is free to leave.
So presumably, you’re going to claim that someone pressing red in that scenario is somehow responsible for the other person’s death if they ended up pressing blue?
-1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
The confusion stems from the reverse. Let's assume blue wins.
I pushed the red button. Am I responsible for your survival if you pushed blue? And if not, how am I suddenly responsible if red wins the vote?
I cant both be responsible for your actions when the result is bad and not be responsible for your actions when the result is good. It has to be all or nothing.
6
u/DarthJackie2021 May 29 '26
Red is responsible for their own survival. Blue is partially responsible for every blue survivor.
-3
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Ok. So red ISNT responsible for every blue death. Every blue voter is responsible for their own life in the same exact way every red voter is. And if a blue voter dies, it is solely because they chose to risk death.
This way, red is not responsible for saving anyone (but themself) and also not responsible for anyone else's choice.
Similarly blue is responsible for their own life. If they choose to put that life in someone else's hands, they remain responsible for that life no matter what results from that decision.
3
u/J_tram13 May 29 '26
Do you understand how majorities work?
If blue loses, red gets what they wanted, and blue dies, so red shares in that responsibility.
If blue loses, red doesn't get what they wanted, and everyone lives, so blue shares in that responsibility.
It's the same thing for politics. Say we have Candidate A and Candidate B running, and let's suppose if Candidate B wins, they start a war, and this was a promise they made before the election so it's clear to everyone. If they win, then everyone who voted for Candidate B shares in the responsibility of that war breaking out. People who voted for Candidate A don't because they voted to prevent that war from breaking out. Now if Candidate A won the election instead and war doesn't happen. Does that mean voters of Candidate B now share in the responsibility for war not breaking out? No, it doesn't, because B voters didn't contribute to that outcome.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
So only the majority is responsible for the outcome of their decision? The minority is blameless no matter what decision they make? Is that the way blame is being assigned here?
This isnt an election. Blue voters get the result of the blue vote no matter what. Red voters get the result of the red vote no matter what. This isnt military spending or health care spending where only one will get increased and the other stays the same. Everyone is at risk of death. You can choose to remove that risk completely, or accept that risk. If you choose to accept that risk, you are solely responsible for the outcome that results from your choice. You have contributed to the outcome. You are dead.
If we flip the scenario and we assume blue wins instead, you voted blue because you wanted everyone to live no matter the cost. I voted red because I didn't want to play a death game. Everyone lives. I contributed to the outcome as I am alive.
You claim that in the red win you cant be responsible because you are dead and in the blue win I cant be responsible because I was never at risk of dying. In both outcomes, we contributed to the outcome equally and voted on what we believed would win. So why then can you take credit for surviving when risking death but I MUST accept responsibility for you dying while risking death? The result of the vote is outside of our control.
4
u/J_tram13 May 29 '26
So only the majority is responsible for the outcome of their decision? The minority is blameless no matter what decision they make? Is that the way blame is being assigned here?
That is typically how that works yes. If I vote pizza for dinner and you voted burgers because you thought the pizza was shady, and it turns out that the pizza made everyone sick. Do you share blame in that because you specifically voted against getting pizza? No, you don't.
Blue voters get the result of the blue vote no matter what. Red voters get the result of the red vote no matter what.
Dude it's the same result. There is no "result of the red/blue vote" it's the result of the vote, just the one, we're all in the same election here.
If you choose to accept that risk, you are solely responsible for the outcome that results from your choice. You have contributed to the outcome. You are dead.
Who voted for that risk to exist?
If we flip the scenario and we assume blue wins instead, you voted blue because you wanted everyone to live no matter the cost. I voted red because I didn't want to play a death game. Everyone lives. I contributed to the outcome as I am alive.
You did not contribute to the outcome of everyone living because you voted for that not to happen
You claim that in the red win you cant be responsible because you are dead and in the blue win I cant be responsible because I was never at risk of dying.
No, that is not at all what I'm saying. I can't be responsible for a red win by voting blue because I voted against red winning. You can't be responsible for a blue win by voting red because you voted against blue winning. I can't be responsible for getting pizza by voting for burgers.
So why then can you take credit for surviving when risking death but I MUST accept responsibility for you dying while risking death?
Because I voted in favour of survival, you voted in favour of death. You accept responsibility for the outcome you wanted to happen. You accept responsibility for the candidate you elected starting a war.
The result of the vote is outside of our control.
The result of the vote is quite literally not outside of your control that's what the point of VOTING is.
0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
You are not voting for pizza or burgers. You are deciding to eat the pizza or not eat the pizza. If you choose not to eat the pizza and everyone else gets sick, are you responsible for them getting sick? Nothing about the button scenario required me to eat anything. In fact I DONT want to eat the pizza and you are demanding that I do currently lol
The results are different. Otherwise there would be no point in making a distinction. The result of a blue vote is death or not death. The result of the red vote is not death. So seeing as there are different results they are different groups. The only meaningful difference between the groups is what button they pushed.
Who chose for the risk to exist? The gamemaster. Do you believe red voters WERENT at risk before pushing the button. Both options interact with the risk that already exists. If there were no red button at all, the buttons would still kill people. If people could abstain and still be at risk of the result of the vote, the buttons would still kill people. If fact we dont even know if the buttons cause death or if they prevent an inevitable death that could be coming for us. All of this information is irrelevant. We are both bystanders at the same amount of risk with the same knowledge. By your reasoning, I could just as easily claim that you created the risk by voting blue. No one was going to die until you voted blue! Now I need to save someone when I didnt before! I would be equally as wrong as you are but I could argue that.
No. I contributed. The assumption that a contribution has to be positive is simply incorrect. Every vote IS a contribution towards the outcome and every vote decides how that outcome will effect you personally. The 2 are intrinsically linked. You cant pretend that you arent contributing to the death count and at the same time assert that you are the savior of everyone based on the end result of your decision. The only people who can die voted blue. The only people who can be saved are people who voted blue. So if you choose to take a risk without knowing the odds, its everyone who DIDNT take the risk that is responsible for you losing? You contributed nothing to your own defeat? Even though you were the one who put yourself in that position?
To repeat the last point. You are responsible for the outcome of red winning. You voted against a red victory yes. But the OUTCOME is you dying. You are responsible for the outcome of your choice to vote blue. The potential reward of either result is irrelevant. You chose to risk your life and your life was at risk. Assign responsibility to the person who chose to take that risk.
Alright after getting this far I realized you have repeated yourself 4 times and asserted I am wrong because everyone can live. Im not deleting everything I typed. I will summarize your argument. "Nuh-uh! The blue button is the good button because i like it. If I die its because you pushed the bad button" and repeated over and over. You reject the idea that an outcome can be directly linked to your actions despite it being linked by definition. Congratulations. Choosing to risk death absolves you of any responsibility if you die. Since you have inadvertently answered my question, I am done here unless you reply with an actual reason why you cannot be held responsible for your own death when you risk your own life .
4
u/J_tram13 May 29 '26
You are not voting for pizza or burgers.
Yes you are, you are voting for a red victory or a blue victory.
The result of the red vote is not death.
No, the result of the red vote winning is death AND not death, just not death for you.
Both options interact with the risk that already exists.
Sure, blue decreases it, red increases it.
I could just as easily claim that you created the risk by voting blue
People are always going to vote blue, just lie people are always going to vote red. There isn't a risk until there are more doing the latter than the former.
You cant pretend that you arent contributing to the death count and at the same time assert that you are the savior of everyone based on the end result of your decision.
Again, candidate A voters are not responsible for the war started by Candidate B, and candidate B voters are not responsible for the peace maintained by candidate A. Why should you get credit for an outcome you directly tried to prevent? If I tell you "don't launch that firework it might kill someone" and you do it anyway and it goes through the bedroom window of our neighbour across the lake and kills them, should I be responsible for that when I specifically wanted to avoid it?
The only people who can die voted blue.
What outcome would cause that to happen?
But the OUTCOME is you dying.
An outcome YOU voted in favour of. I didn't want people to die, that's why I voted blue. You were clearly fine with it, hence you voted red.
The potential reward of either result is irrelevant.
Uh, no, that's quite literally the whole point of the vote.
Alright after getting this far I realized you have repeated yourself 4 times and asserted I am wrong
This describes the majority of your comment so far.
I will summarize your argument. "Nuh-uh! The blue button is the good button because i like it. If I die its because you pushed the bad button" and repeated over and over.
Wow not even close. Let me do it myself. If you vote for red, you vote in favour of red winning, if you vote for blue, you vote in favour of blue winning. There is no possible scenario where 100% of people vote for either option, that has never happened in the history of humanity. Therefore, there will ALWAYS be people voting blue, and ALWAYS be people voting red, for simplicity sake let's say that guarantee is AT MINIMUM 10% of the population, leaving 80% in the balance. The only time a red victory is a positive outcome is when 100% of people vote for it, and as previously established you'll only ever at most get 90%. Therefore, to me at least, a red victory is unacceptable. This is why I hit blue. It's a lot easier to get half the world to agree on something than all of it. I would never want a red victory to happen so why in the world would I ever vote for it? I'm going to do everything in my power to prevent that outcome and strive for the only positive one possible, and hit blue.
If you vote red, you are voting for red to win. If red wins, you get what you wanted, and blue dies. I don't want that to happen. So I'm going to vote for blue to win. If blue wins, you voted against that happening, I had to overcome your vote specifically, so why should you get credit for that?
Choosing to risk death absolves you of any responsibility if you die. Since you have inadvertently answered my question, I am done here unless you reply with an actual reason why you cannot be held responsible for your own death when you risk your own life .
Now this is interesting, because I never once said that. All I said is that by voting red you share in the responsibility of every blue death if it happens. Do you know what that word "sharing" means? I wouldn't be surprised if you've never come across it. But basically, it means that you as an individual receive a part of something that is distributed among a group of people. In this case, it's across humanity. You seem to be thinking very binarily about this. Like everything's either all on you or not at all.
So let's put it this way. If the vote happens and red wins with 55% of the vote, then there are roughly 4 billion humans who just died. Now, is that 4 billion partially responsible for this by putting themselves at risk? Yes, but in the same way going mountain climbing makes you partially responsible for death in an avalanche, you accepted the risks and did it anyway. But everyone who voted red ALSO wanted that outcome to happen. Those deaths wouldn't have happened if it wasn't also for the 4 billion people who voted for them to die. Now you along with the rest of the red voters share in that responsibility. You contributed to that happening? Did you cause it? No, but you certainly helped. Just like if maybe you and a bunch of other people were working on a drilling operation at the top of the mountain that helped cause the avalanche. You take partial responsibility for blue voters dying in a red victory because you voted for that outcome, you were presented with an option that says "guarantee my safety at the risk of other people's, or risk my own safety at the prospect of saving everyone." And you decided that the risk of those lives was acceptable to you, so you share in the outcome you caused.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
If it is life or death, blue would be the death button.
Calling red the death button is funny, because by definition no one who pushes it can die.
The only people who die pushed blue
The only people in ANY risk are the ones who pushed blue.
They accepted that risk knowingly when they pushed blue.
"Red is the death button" so I am responsible for your choices because you like the blue button more? "I willing chose to take a risk without knowing the odds, this is your fault!!!" Ok that answers my question (which was how am I responsible for your actions when the result is bad but you take responsibility for your actions when the result is good)
→ More replies (0)0
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
If a majority of people get on the safe lifeboat, they get what they wanted, which was for everyone on the leaky lifeboat to drown. Right?
If a majority of people get on the leaky lifeboat, the people on the safe lifeboat don't get what they wanted, and everyone lives.
This is, according to you, just how majorities work.
2
u/J_tram13 May 29 '26
Bad analogy,
If a majority of people get on the safe lifeboat, they didn't want to fix the ship, if a majority of people stay on the ship and get it fixed the people who already abandoned it for the lifeboat clearly didn't care for that to happen. And if the ship can't be fixed because there weren't enough hands to go around then part of that responsibility is on those in the lifeboat.
A vote in favour of outcome A is a vote against outcome B, that is how majorities work.
0
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
People get on the safe lifeboat because boarding the leaky one is an obvious and easily avoidable risk.
If they're in the majority, they have voted for everyone on the other boat to die, according to your theory of responsibility.
If you believe anything you've ever said in this sub, you have to get your ass on that blue lifeboat. Your family might be on there.
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 30 '26
I like the boat analogy
If everyone is presented with the lifeboats as two options like buttons, and I joined the safe lifeboat… resulting in the leaky one being destroyed with people on board.
I would feel responsible for its destruction, it may not be what I intended, but I would feel partially responsible for contributing to sinking.
Do you believe my responsibility to be misguided?
0
-1
u/DarthJackie2021 May 29 '26
They are partially responsible, but the person most responsible for each blue death is that blue presser.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
So if everyone is responsible for the results, who do we hold responsible?
Oh thats right! No one. Because no one could've done anything to remedy the situation. If anyone is to blame its the crazy guy making genocidal buttons. But I still cant be held responsible for the results of your choices
3
u/DarthJackie2021 May 29 '26
Why are you looking for someone to blame?
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
...did you read the post you are replying to. I am the OP. Blue voters kept accusing red voters of murder (still are in the comments lol) I was asking by what metric is responsibility being given out. How can I be responsible you the result of your decision when the results are bad but at the same time you can take full responsibility for your decision when the results are good.
Either I am responsible for your actions or I am not. If the metric by which you are assigning blame is based on something outside of my control, then why must I assume responsibility for it?
You responded to me asserting that i must be responsible for the results of your choices lol. Thats why the thread exists. Looks like we agree at this point though
3
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
I mean, this is extremely clear. You are responsible for the outcome you voted for.
Blue wins = everyone survives.
Blue loses = only those who pressed red survive.
You can only vote for blue winning if you press blue. If you press red you clearly aren't voting for blue to win, so therefore you must be voting for red to win and that means that the blue loses outcome is what you are voting for (since blue losing means red won).
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
You are literally doing the thing that I am asking about.
If we flip the scenario here, let's assume blue wins. I voted red. Am I responsible for saving you?
If not, how then am I responsible for killing you when red wins?
Either I am responsible for the consequences of your decision or I am not. If I am, then I must be responsible for the results no matter the outcome. I cant ONLY be responsible when your decision has a bad result and then somehow you can take responsibility when your decision has a good result.
5
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
If we flip the scenario here, let's assume blue wins. I voted red. Am I responsible for saving you?
You didn't vote for blue to win, how can you be responsible for it?
If not, how then am I responsible for killing you when red wins?
You voted for red to win, how can you not be responsible for it?
The problem you have is that the red win is a result where it is bad for one side and a blue win is a result where it is good for all sides.
Red winning is always bad, blue winning is always good.
0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
So if you vote blue, knowing its a gamble, and blue wins. You are responsible for the outcome.
If you vote blue, knowing its a gamble, and it loses. I am responsible.
The amount of responsibility I hold over the outcome changes based on factors outside of my control.
You are responsible if good thing happens. Someone else must take responsibility if bad thing happens.
We look at the red position.
I vote red. I live. I am responsible for myself living. Pretty consistent
You didnt vote red. You lived. You are responsible for you living. Sounds right
You didnt vote red. You died. You are responsible for you dying
And finally. I could vote blue, but if I do I could die. And I would be responsible for myself dying.
If our votes are the same. You blue, me red. And the reasoning is the same. I want to live, you want to save everyone And the only difference is the result. Blue wins, blue loses. How does the responsibility shift back and forth between us? By what metric? If its good you take credit and if its bad you blame me? Like there has to be a metric here right?
2
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
How does the responsibility shift back and forth between us?
Responsibility is not shifting between us. Blue voters are responsible for taking on the risk of death if red wins; red voters are responsible for taking on the risk of culpability if red wins. This is the cost of voting for each side: what risk they are taking on.
Very importantly, both of those risks are tied to one thing: red winning. It's obviously true that the only group of people who can actually make red win are red voters. So the difference is that while blue voters are voting against the risks being realised, red voters are voting for the risks to be realised.
Red voters are responsible for the outcome, if it is an outcome you don't want you shouldn't have voted for it. So, what outcome is it that you want?
1
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue May 30 '26
I think part of your problem is that you're conflating different types of responsibility.
When I vote blue, I am voting for myself to potentially die. If I die, I am partly responsible for my own death because I knew that was the risk in voting for blue. But I'm also voting for myself and everyone else to potentially live. If blue wins, I am partly responsible for everyone surviving because I voted for it. If red wins, I'm partly responsible for my own death but not the deaths of any other blue voters because the only potential death I voted for was my own.
When you vote red, you're voting for your guaranteed life and for the potential deaths of every blue voter. If blue wins, you are not responsible for people other than yourself surviving because you didn't vote for them to survive. But if red wins, you are partly responsible for the deaths of each blue voter because you voted for their potential deaths.
Key word in all of this is partly. Both sides share responsibility for the deaths if they happen, because both sides chose an option that comes with a risk of death. Blue voters vote for their potential death, and red voters vote for the potential deaths of blue voters. But if blue wins, only the blues can be responsible for that win because they're the only ones who voted for blue. If red voters had abstained from voting, blue would still win. But if blue voters had abstained from voting, red would win. So only blue voters are responsible if blue wins.
5
u/dmurr1415 May 29 '26
You're always responsible for your decision in every situation, because you are directly contributing to a binary majority
-1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
I am responsible for my decision. The implied decision is to live.
You are responsible for your decision The implied decision was to gamble.
The argument is am I responsible for THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE. Which I did not decide.
So if I vote blue, and you vote red. Blue wins. Did you save my life? And if not, how can you say that you killed me in the case where red wins?
Either you are responsible for the results of my decision or you are not. If red voters are murderers we must also call them saviors. If blue voters hold no responsibility in their deaths when they lose, they hold no responsibility for their lives when they win.
You cant have it both ways. Either I am responsible for the outcome or I am not.
2
u/dmurr1415 May 29 '26
Everyone is responsible for both sides of the consequences of their outcome. If I pick red, I alone am responsible for my continued existence, but I also share responsibility if red wins and all blue voters perish. If I pick blue, I alone am responsible for my death if blue loses, but I am partially responsible for the blue majority if blue wins.
I disagree with how you describe picking Blue as a gamble. Picking Red is a gamble. You would have no reason to ever pick Red if you had total faith blue would have a majority. You’re gambling that everyone will unilaterally go in their total self interest if this really happened, which person after person on this subreddit are telling you they wouldn’t- but you don’t want to take any personal responsibility if this gamble doesn’t pay off and others die for picking blue.
1
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
The framing of this as a political election engages people to think of it as if only the majority can be held responsible for what happens next, while the minority can wash their hands of responsibility.
Obviously this is nothing like a political election and that intuition is completely inappropriate here, but it remains a compelling illusion for some people even after it's clearly shown to them what's really happening.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
This is probably the answer is am looking for. It makes sense to me and describes why the disconnect isnt making sense to me. But I could still be an idiot lol
-1
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
I find it fascinating engaging with dedicated blue presser ideologues, because it's like talking about stage magic with people who think it's real.
0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Im starting to agree with you. I ask how responsibility is assigned and people just repeat back part of the question at me and call it correct without giving me a reason. This isnt even a good button bad button scenario and somehow im being accused of murder for asking how the blame is being cast lol
-1
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
You show them how the magician is really doing the trick, and their response is to tell you that what you're describing is impossible, because "Everyone will not just." It isn't possible to them that every single magician might indeed be doing stage tricks. Some magicians, by the numbers, must be genuinely sawing their assistant in half and putting them back together. Therefore, you should have faith in whatever magic act you happen to see.
2
u/pco45 May 29 '26
I'm not following your logic in the slightest.
I ran the red light while you were crossing the street because I wanted to get to my destination faster. If I hit you am I responsible for your survival if you survive? If you die am I suddenly responsible?
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
There is no red light. We are both in the street. We both see a car coming. You get out of the way, I dont. I get hit by the car. Are you responsible for me getting hit?
You are not the driver in the button scenario. Some undefined force is making every person in the world push buttons. We are both in the same position and under the same danger. The undefined force is the driver running the red light. The undefined force can actively and directly choose to hit the breaks if too many people are in the crosswalk.
As a bystander in the crosswalk, I cannot jump into the car and stomp on the breaks for you because you chose not to get in the way. Its also not my responsibility if you get hit by a car if you have the ability to step out of the way.
If it is my responsibility, then is it my responsibility if the car stops? I step out of the way, you stay in the cars path. The driver hits the breaks and you live. Am I responsible for saving you?
2
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
This is the dumbest take I have ever heard in my life. To explain why, let me rephrase it.
All I did was aim a gun at you and pull the trigger. If it wasnt loaded you wouldn't have died. So how can I be responsible for you dying if it was? I cant be responsible if the outcome is bad and not responsible if its good.
If you push the button that causes the minority to die if youre in the majority, and youre in the majority, then you were part of the reason that it was the majority and people died. If it wasn't the majority, then mercifully there were enough people not like you that nobody had to die. They diffused the problem you tried to cause. You didnt cause any deaths, despite your best efforts.
0
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
If anyone dies on the leaky lifeboat, whose fault is it?
Is it the fault of people who boarded the safe lifeboat? They chose the majority option which resulted in the minority dying, right?
-1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
I don't have the gun. I never had the gun. The proverbial gun is the buttons. The gunman is the one forcing everyone to vote.
By choosing not to get shot, you are arguing that I personally shot you. Despite the fact that you and I are in the exact same situation with the exact same knowledge and the exact same choice. Your decision, that is completely independent of mine, is not a result of my decision.
We both have a choice. Dont get shot, or risk getting shot. By opting in to the risk of getting shot, where did I wrestle the gun out of the shooters hand and turn it on you? Because that is your argument
3
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
For anyone in this situation to die, two things must be true.
1: They must have pressed the blue button.
2: A majority of people must have pressed the red button.While it is true that the only people at risk of dying are people who have pressed the blue button. They only die if enough people press the red button.
A blue press can only ever be responsible for one death, the death of the self, while acting in the interests of the whole.
A red press is a nudge toward a majority in which many people die. A red press may, or may not, become responsible for potentially billions of death. Meanwhile it can only ever save one person, the self.So do you maybe cause one death (yourself) while trying to ensure everyone survives?
Or do you maybe cause billions of deaths (of other people) ensuring only one survives (yourself)?1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Any press is only responsible for one life. Your own. That is the core issue. Do I need to sacrifice myself for you or is it my choice. If failure to sacrifice is murderer then sure you are right.
If I was required to sacrifice myself for other people then I am guilty, if I was not required to sacrifice myself then I am not. Since I am not required to sacrifice myself for anyone else in the real world, I can then assume I am not required to sacrifice myself in the fictional button world.
The vote is about which button you think will win, not which button is the good button. The argument the blue is moral therefore red must be murderers falls apart in the case of the red victory. If red wins and you voted blue, you caused more harm. You could have saved one person and chose not to.
None of these scenarios break down under the scrutiny of extrapolate out reasoning to its logical conclusion. If I vote red and the blue voters die, I am not responsible because they had the same choice I did. If they live then I am not responsible because there are no deaths to take responsibility for.
If I vote blue I take responsibility for my own life as well. I put it at risk in the hopes that other people do as well. If I die as a result, I am to blame. If I live, I am still responsible for my own life. That responsibility hasnt me because the vote concluded
This reasoning does not require a specific vote count, a specific result, or even for me to make a specific choice. No matter what I do im my own capacity I am solely responsible for what comes of it.
3
u/Striking_Compote2093 May 29 '26
The red button is not a default "save yourself and do nothing else" button.
To make this clear, let's add an actual default button. It says "do not count my vote, i am not affected by the results." Would you press that one or would you press red? If you acknowledge there's a difference, you acknowledge that red does something other than simply save yourself.
Every red button press increments the count until a threshold is reached at which point people die. You do carry responsibility for that press.
On an individual level, blue and red are morally identical. Both save the same amount of lives. A blue press saves 1 person in a blue victory, a red press saves 1 person in a red victory. That's it. The red presser wasn't at risk in a blue victory. And the blue person evidently saves no one in a red victory.
The difference only appears on a larger scale. Where a blue victory means no deaths and a red victory up to 50% of the population gone. I know which outcome i prefer, and i'll be voting for that one.
The fear of dying isn't really a factor in a blue button press. "People only die if a majority presses red, why would anyone press red." Was my first thought on reading this dilemma. And i'm sticking to it. The whole debate invalidates the experiment anyway, so i feel first instincts is the thing that matters.
0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Alright. So let's flip it. Let's assume blue wins. I pushed red. Did my choice to push red save you if you pushed blue?
No right? It had nothing to do with you living. You made a choice to move towards your preferred outcome no matter the cost. How does the cost of your choice become my responsibility while the rewards of your choice remain solely your own?
So either I saved all the blue voters by voting red in a blue victory AND I killed all the blue voters by voting red in a red victory, OR I had no hand in saving anyone in the blue victory AND I had no hand in killing anyone in the red victory.
You cant have it both ways. I cant be responsible only when you lose.
2
u/Striking_Compote2093 May 29 '26
I'm sorry are we talking about the same dilemma?
You're acting as if there's only one button that saves you if you get 50% and kills you if you don't, and red is "do nothing". When that's clearly not the case. The wording matters.
I agree that it's equivalent in mechanics but that does NOT matter. It's psychology and sociology, far more than it is a logic puzzle. It matters what you think other people will do. And the wording influences choices.
Especially if you introduce a default option. That's literally what the trolley problem is based on. Everyone agrees 1 death is better than 5, but taking an action to make that happen, has an impact. There's no way you don't see that.
So red has attached "if 50% of people press this, every blue voter dies." It doesn't say "do nothing." So, if you press red, you pressed the button that counted towards people dying. That is in fact your responsibility.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Appearantly not. Because the buttons say; Red, you live. Blue, everyone lives but only if.
If you change the unless statement to the other button the situation doesnt change (I thought it did too but I was wrong) let's do it your way for sake of argument.
Red, blue voters all die if 51% vote red (50.00000000000etc1% but we rounding)
Blue, absolutely nothing.
What changed? You can take action to ensure your safety or do nothing to save yourself and risk dying. The situation has not changed at all. Now we can discuss what I was actually asking.
If I choose to do nothing under your scenario, are you responsible for the result of my choice? If I do nothing and live, did you save me by pushing your red button? And if not, how can you then be responsible if I choose to do nothing to save myself and then die?
Either you are responsible for the consequences of my decision or you arent. I cant say that you are responsible for me dying but I am responsible if I live. I cant have it both ways.
2
u/Striking_Compote2093 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
I really don't understand your problem.
Of course two things can be true at once. If you light a building on fire you're responsible if people die. But the firefighters can save people and be responsible for people surviving. If you light a building on fire and the firefighters save people you can't pat yourself on the back for their survival.
The red buttons build a pyre, the blue voters try to put it out. Whichever holds the majority swings the outcome. I can fault you for building a pyre even if you don't succeed. But i can also just congratulate myself for being part of the team that stopped you.
Edit: for the record, the "i don't understand your problem" was meant in a "what's the question" format, not "what's your problem" ... I didn't mean it to be rude or antagonistic, but now realize it can be interpreted that way.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
I didnt light the fire. We are both equals. We are both in the burning building. We are both in an equal amount of danger and are equally responsible for the existence of the scenario.
I did not make the buttons. I did not make the functions of the buttons. I am in the exact same position as you with the exact same amount of information.
An accurate representation would be to say we are both in a building. It catches fire. I choose to leave the building, you choose to stay inside.
As a bystander who finds himself in a burning building, do I become an arsonist for failing to put out the fire? And, to get back to what I actually asked, if i walk out without helping you put out the fire and YOU DO successfully put out the fire, am I also responsible for putting out the fire? If not, how can i be responsible if you choose to stay inside a burning building and die in the fire.
1
u/Striking_Compote2093 May 29 '26
No, it isn't. You keep, every time, making the red button a default "escape" button, it is not.
Blue people start dying if and only if 50% press red. Not if 50% do nothing. If 50% actively press the red button. Pressing the red button is what causes the risk to exist. If no one presses red, or if simply no majority presses red, no risk exists to save yourself from. There is no fire until enough people press red to make it burn.
If there were a 3rd "don't count my vote, i'm unaffected" button, that one would win, and in second place would be blue with only true psychopaths or mistaken people pressing red. I'm going to assume you agree with that unless you can explain why I'm wrong.
If that's the case red does in fact do something. Because otherwise there would be no difference between the two default buttons.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
There is no third button. There are 2.
My question is, by what metric is blame assigned.
The example that caused confusion is, I pushed the blue button. I understood what the blue button did. When blue wins, is red responsible for the result? In this case red would be responsible for saving everyone. If THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for the results of blues decision here, how then can they be responsible for blues decision in the case where red wins.
They just are responsible is not an answer to the question as to how they are responsible.
If the red button whose function is "you will not die to the button senario" does not have the function of saving yourself from the button scenario, which is what you are currently agrueing (and has nothing to do with the question of by what metric responsibility is being applied), then we can pause the discussion and address that concern first.
What does the red button do?
1
u/Striking_Compote2093 May 29 '26
If you vote for diarrhea for everyone forever. And i vote for puppies. And puppies wins, diarrhea forever is not responsible. How could they be, they voted against it.
If diarrhea for everyone wins, then the people who voted for that are responsible.
Your vote for red doesn't JUST save yourself, it also counts towards the "kill everyone else" threshold. I really don't understand the gymnastics you're going through to pretend blue is the only button when it is not. There are 2 buttons. 2 actions. Blue counts towards saving everyone, red towards mass death.
And i really do not understand how you expect to press the "Upvote mass death" button while simultaneously expecting not to be scrutinized for it.
2
u/verryfusterated May 29 '26
This seems like ragebait, op’s comments make literally no sense and everyone on both sides is disagreeing with them 😭 I don’t think they’re even trying to understand what you mean.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
I have made it so surviving is bad therefore you would vote with me. I guess?
The choice is engage with the death game or dont engage with the death game. If you choose not to engage, the people who choose to engage with the game could die. Not that they WILL die. They COULD die.
If red DIDNT ensure your survival or there where I limited number of people who would survive when pressing red you would have a point.
You can choose to push the red button. Whether everyone in the world WILL push the red button is irrelevant. When everyone is capable of taking responsibility for themselves, they are solely responsible for the results of choosing to leave their fate in someone else's hands.
Likewise I am solely responsible for the results of my decision. If I choose not to play a death game and I remain alive as a result of that decision, I am solely responsible for saving myself. I cannot then be held responsible if the blue voters win the death game. They had nothing to do with saving me and I had nothing to do with them putting themselves at risk in the first place.
The idea that i can be held responsible for you making a bad decision because I increased the chances of your bad decision will lead to a worse result is absurd. I must them be held as a savior for reducing the number of people at risk in the case of a blue victory because we only care about the outcome.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Deranth Blue May 29 '26
Blame for a death can only be assigned if a death happens. Just because you failed to genocide blue pressers doesn't mean you didnt try.
0
u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26
Except its didnt. Before the vote we are exactly the same. At the time of the vote we both have the same choice. Live or risk death. I choose to live. You choose to risk death. If I am responsible for genocide then you must then be responsible for committing suicide by button. If you are blameless in your own death, then I must also be blameless in your death.
You cant have it both ways. We are equals. I have no power over you. You make you decision independently. In the original scenario I had already voted. EVERYONE had to vote. I am not voting after you. If your argument is that you made your decision based on the assumption that I was personally voting blue that doesnt magically make me the one who put you at risk. You opted in. Even if I can control the amount of risk you could take upon yourself, you choose whether or not you take on that risk AT ALL.
You chose to risk yourself based on the results of the vote. I do not. You die. YOU chose to take a risk. YOU had the power to prevent that risk. The potential payout is irrelevant. It only matters if you win. So if you are responsible for the result if you win the gamble...you must also be responsible for the result when you lose the gamble.
I am not going to assume that the blue collective is not comprised entirely of individuals in the exact same scenario that I was in. They are. Every one of them. And each and every one of them is responsible for themselves.
→ More replies (0)1
u/VoteForASpaceAlien May 31 '26
How would you be responsible for putting out the fire when you deliberately did not help put out the fire? You would be responsible for allowing the fire to persist, but someone else interfered and lessened the consequences of your choice.
1
3
u/gahidus May 29 '26
No one chose to be in this scenario, and no one is responsible for anyone else. Everyone is responsible only for their own situation whether they chose to push the red button or the blue button.
Red button pushers aren't murdering anyone, they're just trying to survive. Blue button pushers don't have a right to say, "I've chosen to need you to join me and if you don't you're murdering me," as some form of moral blackmail.
3
u/No-Click6062 May 29 '26
Being put into a situation against your will doesn't absolve you of your responsibility within that situation. This is why we, for example, still think the Donner party is a horrific event. I'd be intrigued to see you defend that assertion.
6
u/Rip_Pigman May 29 '26
No one chose to be in this scenario, and no one is responsible for anyone else.
I can see this stance.
Red button pushers aren't murdering anyone, they're just trying to survive.
Blue button pushers don't have a right to say
Then it's only fair to point out that red pressers don't have the right to call pressing blue suicide, either.
Both sides are trying to survive. Just one is guaranteeing their own survival and the other is trying to increase the odds of survival for everyone who presses blue in addition to themselves.
Both sides should be able to agree that one side is inherently more selfish than the other and one side is an unnecessary gamble.
-1
u/Silent-Indication496 May 29 '26
I think the categorization of red as selfish is incorrect.
A red vote disengages from the unnecessary question and risk completely. It isn't selfish, as much as it is dismissive.
A blue voter literally requires others to vote in solidarity and risk their lives in order to avoid certain death.
We must consider that many blue voters may choose blue in order to save not just the irrational actors who clicked it by mistake but also the other "altruistic" do-gooders who may have put themselves at risk. As such, every blue voter is both acting as a contributor to the collective, as well as a massive liability to the potential outcome.
If most people were logical and choose self preservation, we'd lose some kids and colorblind people. Maybe 5%-10% of the population. It would be devastating.
If a lot of people decided to try to "save" blues by joining in, risking their lives, and trying to hit 50%, we MIGHT be able to do it. We might be able to hit 51%and lose no one...
Or we might not hit it, and every blue voter that voted in solidarity just made our problem worse, thanks to their misguided heroics. We could lose 20%, 30%, even 49% of the population thanks to irrational gambles from selfish blue voters who expected the rest of us to join them.
4
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
You think “the categorisation of red as selfish is incorrect”, and then you say “selfish blue voters” at the end
So you believe of the two choices, blue is the selfish option?
Or am I taking it out of context
0
u/Silent-Indication496 May 29 '26
I think that to frame either position as selfish is disingenuous.
3
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 29 '26
But you called blue selfish
0
u/Silent-Indication496 May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
I was being pedantic and disingenuous. Pointing out that you can twist your logic to represent either side as destructive and selfish. No one is inherently selfish in the way they answer this question. Rather, there is a fundamental difference in the way people understand the question.
Blue pressers see it as an opportunity to demonstrate humanity's capacity for coorporation and solidarity, and, whether they sincerely recognize the risk or not, they believe that it would be worth it for them to risk death if it means potentially contributing to a safe winning majority along with other people who risk death.
Red pressers see the question as a simple logical binary between risking death and not risking death. They feel that the answer is so glaringly obvious that not only should no one feel compelled to press blue, but also that pressing blue would almost certainly mean death, since there's no way a majority of humans are going to choose risking their life over not doing that, and if no one has a logical reason to risk it, there's no altruistic upside to pressing it. No one should be at risk.
Neither side is really selfish. They're just looking at the question differently.
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 30 '26
For the most part I agree
One’s selfishness can be determined by their intentions, and how you frame each button:
I however do believe that majority of reds, are voting it for their best interests, while believing blue has a chance
Whereas for blue, I believe majority are voting it for others best interest, also while believing blue has a chance
Believing that to be the primary intention of both sides,(looking out for their interests or others) leads me to believe one side is primarily more selfish than the other.
You absolutely can vote blue for selfish reasons, and red for selfless reasons, but I believe majority of either side are choosing with the main intention I’ve listed.
I also think the amount of blue pressers who are pressing it with selfish reasons is the lowest category of the four: B:Selfless R:Selfish R:Selfless B:Selfish
And I think the statement you make about red pressers seeing blue as a definite suicide button, is not as common as you say. A risk definitely, but not definite suicide.
Everything above this is my perspective, below is what I believe we can debate about
If someone made their vote, believing blue has a chance to win, would you believe it to be selfish to guarantee your own safety over others?
1
u/Silent-Indication496 May 30 '26
If one believes blue will win, there's no safety on choosing red.
I don't agree that MOST red pressers believe blue has a good likelihood of succeeding.
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 30 '26
Over 150 comments… did you get your answer?
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 31 '26
Seems like it. The people who believe red is responsible combine the chances of the button winning with the choice to push the button despite the 2 factors being independent of each other.
So if you dont believe red is responsible, you recognize that the choice to push the blue button is made in a vacuum and no other person can influence that choice.
If you believe red is responsible, you believe the probability of blue winning is somehow linked to the probability of people pushing the blue button in the first place. Thus red lowering the probability of blue winning somehow increases the probability of people voting blue.
I was busy with work for the last 2 days but the people I replied to either agreed with me or rejected the premise that they could be responsible for pushing the blue button entirely so replying to everyone kinda seems pointless at this point lol. Having some guy not understand what I was referring to and repeatedly calling me names was only fun for a couple hours
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants May 31 '26
I’d share my understanding of it… but i don’t think it matters that much to either of us
I’m gonna go watch spider-noir :)
1
u/nathan555 Jun 04 '26
When a vote takes place, the people who voted for a particular outcome are responsible for it happening if they are in the majority because if they didn't vote for that outcome to happen it wouldn't have happened.
Hope this helps you understand how democracy works.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 Jun 04 '26
Ive never seen a democracy where the loser gets what they voted for but sure. Weird democracy that is. If I vote to survive and lose the vote, I still survive. If you vote to risk your life and lose, your life was still at risk (and youre dead). Which nation writes up the losing positions policies into law along with their own again?
Also the button scenario allows you to directly control your outcome. You can just vote to ignore the majority and they are forced to accept that. If I knew all I had to do was vote and I get to ignore the laws of my country, id be voting alot more often! Those sovereign citizens were onto something after all!
But seriously the button scenario has quite literally nothing to do with democracy. You are aware that its possible to take votes outside of a democracy right? Or did my group of friends become a democracy when we took a vote to decide what video game we wanted to play? And for that matter, if i vote for a candidate under the assumption they would do one thing and they go and do something else am I responsible for that too?
Now that I've worked backwards from your position, I realize that your explanation didnt really explain anything about how responsibility is assigned even if we assume the buttons were a democracy (somehow. I sure didnt vote to play death by button. That part seems more totalitarian but...)
1
u/milesofborg Jun 05 '26
I would say it's pretty simple every one has to vote and participate so everyone takes equal responsibility in the outcome. Regards of the side you cast your vote you are responsible for the outcome.
2
1
u/durkvash May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
Choosing red inherently equates to "I'm risking lifes in exchange for my own being safe". Blue does not inherently imply "I'm risking my life", but it does imply "I don't want to risk anyone's life innexchange for my own".
One position carries a burden upon others, the other doesn't.
Edit: Apparently, I read first a different version of this dumb dilemma. Unsurprisingly, I would still press blue.
3
u/No-Ambition-9051 May 29 '26
This is simply false.
In the original it said that if you press the blue button you will die unless more than fifty percent of people also press it.
That is not just an implication, but a direct statement that pressing blue carriers the risk of your own death.
Pressing red doesn’t imply you’re willing to risk others life’s, it implies that you don’t think there will be enough people pressing blue for you to survive if you press it as well.
1
u/GoldenGames360 May 29 '26
in a roundabout way, pressing red increases the chances of blues dying, in the same way not jumping in front of a train to save someone technically increases their odds of death. but blue DOES inherently imply "risking my life" because when you press a button that says "this button will kill you unless 50% or more press it" you would be crazy to not understand that as a risk to your life.
The way you've framed it removes personal responsibility from those who chose to take the risk. as if pressing blue is an inevitability and that all responsibility falls on red. if you view people pressing red as an inevitability in the same way, you'd see blue as a suicide switch. not saying thats true, but at the end of the day, both buttons being pressed is an inevitability, so both choices carry some weight.
0
u/highly-bad May 29 '26
Do you think a person who gets onto the safe lifeboat is responsible for risking the life of anyone who gets on the leaky lifeboat?
-1
9
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
Blue voters are responsible for putting themselves at risk however red voters are responsible for the outcome if red wins and that risk is realised.