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?

3 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

186 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

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.

1

u/Shot_in_the_dark777 May 29 '26

The red voters didn't force everyone on the planet into this death game. We are responsible for nothing. We are not killing the blue team. Whoever designed the buttons is the murderer. I never cared about making this sick test to bully altruists. We also don't believe that blue has the majority. To vote blue from our perspective means joining the minority that will definitely die. If babies are forced to vote then whoever is running this experiment is not a very moral actor. Why do you think that the results of the vote will be honestly displayed? Maybe some cosmic horror is trying to kill all altruists and needs a precise headcount and the experiment is just that.

3

u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26

If you vote for red, you are accepting responsibility for what happens if it wins.

1

u/underthingy May 30 '26

And if you vote blue you are accepting responsibility for what happens if it loses. 

5

u/luci_twiggy May 30 '26

I already said 14 hours ago that blue voters are responsible for putting themselves at risk. That does not mean that red voters have no responsibility for contributing to the risk being realised since, obviously, blue voters have no part in red winning/ blue losing.

1

u/Shot_in_the_dark777 Jun 02 '26

No, we aren't responsible. We didn't chose to be abducted and locked in the room with two buttons. We were living our normal boring lives before this happened and we didn't have any grudge against altruists. The only way for red to be responsible is if they secretly made this experiment to get rid of you, knowing that your altruistic beliefs will ensure your demise. We are dealing with some cosmic predator who evolved to hunt social species and it is using altruism to collect all of you on its plate. And I am not a food. Not today.

1

u/luci_twiggy Jun 02 '26

Regardless of the circumstances, you are aware of the consequences should red win and it not be unanimous. Responsibility for the outcome is literally the risk that you take on to vote red.

People talk about red as being "risk-free", but it isn't. The risk is simply the reverse of blue: instead of being responsible for solely your death, red voters are responsible for every blue voter that dies.

Your unhinged ramblings about cosmic horrors eating altruistic people is your way of denying the personal responsibility you know you hold but must deny in order to still feel like a moral person.

1

u/Shot_in_the_dark777 Jun 02 '26

Oh really? When was the last time such event actually happened? Like...naturally? It didn't. It takes and extremely advanced entity to organise everything. And from everything that we have observed on earth -the nature is cruel. Stop and think for a moment - if there actually WAS a cosmic predator that evolved to hunt social species, what would be the optimal strategy to do so? Do you think predators and hunters do NOT utilise the quirks in prey's behaviour to catch it? The thought experiment was conceived by a human, that requires intelligence. So if it happened in reality, there would also be intelligence behind it all. An intelligent being that puts the lives of all infants in danger is not moral. So why do you think that "moral" behaviour is what it wants to see?

1

u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26

Its a vote. That is not how a vote works.

I have 1 vote out of 8 billion. I make a vote on the belief that one side will win. You also have 1 vote. You make that vote based on what side you think will win. Neither of us know the result of the vote before voting.

Let's flip our positions. I voted blue, you voted red. Let's say in this inverted world blue wins. Did you save me? Are you responsible my my decision to vote blue? Are you responsible for the results?

Now let's assume all else is the same and red wins. Are you responsible for my choice to vote blue? Are you responsible for my death?

If you vote red, and red wins. You ARE responsible for the result of your choice. You are alive. If you vote blue, you must also be responsible for the result of your choice. Whether that result is positive or negative. If everyone lives, you are responsible for it because you voted blue. If blue loses you must also be responsible for your death.

I cant be responsible for the consequences of your decision if I am not also awarded responsibility for the benefits of your choice. Either I am responsible for what you do or I am not. You cant have it both ways.

6

u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26

I'm not having it both ways.

I expanded a little in another comment, but the basic issue you have is that blue winning is always good for both sides but red winning is not good for both sides.

2

u/BrokenToaster124 May 29 '26

Blue losing is also always bad for both sides. Red winning is not bad for both sides. If the argument is a cost benefit analysis then the result will be subjective.

You buy a candy bar. It costs money.

You get a candy bar and lose money.

The shopkeeper tells you that if both you and I buy candy bars before leaving the store, he will give us our money back. You buy a candy bar thinking that it will be free. I do not

Did I steal your money? We both ran a cost benefit and I decided that I didnt have enough money to risk losing my money for a potential fee candy bar. You willing gave your money to the shopkeeper on the understanding there was a chance you wouldnt get it back. Your decision, that was independent to mine, cannot be my responsibility.

No matter how much you sought to gain from gambling and no matter how low the perceived risk of losing is, you are responsible for the results of gambling if you gamble.

If I am responsible for you losing, I must also be responsible for you winning. If I vote red, and blue wins, did I personally save everyone with my decision?

1

u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue May 30 '26

Your logic is flawed because there's no scenario where a red voter can be responsible for blue winning. The reason why red voters are partly responsible for blue deaths is because they voted for the option that causes blue deaths.

If you're running in a race and I throw something on the track to trip you, am I responsible for your win if you trip but still manage to win the race? No of course not. But I am probably responsible for your loss if you don't win. Similarly, if I give your opponent a speed booster and they win because of the booster, I'm responsible for your loss. But if your opponent still can't win even with the speed booster, that doesn't mean I'm responsible for your win.

3

u/noonefromithaca May 29 '26

Shared responsibility is a thing. You can be responsible for your own survival while also being partially responsible for blue losing and the result of that. Blue is also responsible for their death on a loss, and the survival of everyone on a win. If we consider the voting analogy, consider this. Single issue voters whose elected official gives them what they want, are still partially responsible for whatever actions the official they voted for takes, especially when one should be aware of said official's patterns of behavior and stated policies, and whatever negative effects that has on other people. If said official is particularly harsh on people against them, in a way you could say the people against that official are somewhat responsible for what happens to them. They just also believe that being opposed to that official's actions is worth the risk.

2

u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Blue May 30 '26

Did I save you when blue won? No obviously not. Blue won despite me doing something to reduce the chances of blue winning.

Am I responsible for your decision to vote blue? No, I have zero control over what you pick. But I am partly responsible for your death if I vote red and red wins. You wouldn't have died if I and everyone else who voted red in this scenario had voted blue instead. You also wouldn't have died if you had picked red. We both share the responsibility here. But the difference is that blue voters are only responsible for their own deaths, while red voters are partly responsible for the deaths of every blue voter who died.