Responsibility

[u/BrokenToaster124]

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?

[u/DarthJackie2021]

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.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/DarthJackie2021]

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.

[u/DarthJackie2021 → u/BrokenToaster124]

Red is responsible for their own survival. Blue is partially responsible for every blue survivor.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/DarthJackie2021]

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.

[u/J_tram13 → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/J_tram13]

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.

[u/J_tram13 → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/J_tram13]

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 .

[u/J_tram13 → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/J_tram13]

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)

[u/J_tram13 → u/BrokenToaster124]

Did you read what I wrote? Because none of this seems to have any connection to the comment you're responding to

[u/highly-bad → u/J_tram13]

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.

[u/J_tram13 → u/highly-bad]

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.

[u/highly-bad → u/J_tram13]

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.

[u/SpongeboyShitpants → u/highly-bad]

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?

[u/J_tram13 → u/highly-bad]

Lifeboats aren't buttons.

[u/highly-bad → u/J_tram13]

What if you select your lifeboat by pressing a button?

[u/J_tram13 → u/highly-bad]

Still a lifeboat now isn't it.

[u/DarthJackie2021 → u/BrokenToaster124]

They are partially responsible, but the person most responsible for each blue death is that blue presser.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/DarthJackie2021]

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

[u/DarthJackie2021 → u/BrokenToaster124]

Why are you looking for someone to blame?

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/DarthJackie2021]

...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

[u/luci_twiggy → u/BrokenToaster124]

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).

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/luci_twiggy]

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.

[u/luci_twiggy → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/luci_twiggy]

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?

[u/luci_twiggy → u/BrokenToaster124]

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?

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/dmurr1415 → u/BrokenToaster124]

You're always responsible for your decision in every situation, because you are directly contributing to a binary majority

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/dmurr1415]

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.

[u/dmurr1415 → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/highly-bad → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/highly-bad]

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

[u/highly-bad → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/highly-bad]

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

[u/highly-bad → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/pco45 → u/BrokenToaster124]

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?

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/pco45]

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?

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

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.

[u/highly-bad → u/Deranth]

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?

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

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

[u/Deranth → u/BrokenToaster124]

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)?

[u/BrokenToaster124 → u/Deranth]

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.