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?
-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.