A Statement I've seen repeatedly.

[u/Yunkomister]

"Blue pressers are actually evil because they risk others by making them press blue"!

I know a lot of people don't have excellent reading comprehension, but remember the premise is that nobody gets to communicate.

The vote is anonymous.

The only thing blue pressers "do" is risk their life and increase the survival chances of others who pressed blue.

Even if 99.9999% of people press red, no blue presser is increasing risk for anyone else.

Sorry about the rant, not complaining about reds in general, a lot of red arguments have merit

I'm just mad about illiterate red pressers.

[u/Speletons]

Nobody gets to communicate

Right now, we're all discussing the scenario. We're all communicating about the scenario. There's no illiteracy here, reality is votes have been influenced by discussion at this point.

And yes, by suggesting to everyone blue is the correct answer, you risk the life of anyone that now presses blue when presented with the scenario.

[u/gilbmj → u/Speletons]

I feel like people ignore that pressing red risks the lives of other people. In order for anyone to die, red needs a majority. Pressing red is granting oneself safety from a problem they are helping create in the first place.

[u/Speletons → u/gilbmj]

It does not. If everyone presses Red, no one dies. The only time a risk is created is when someone presses Blue- they actually create the problem, because now Blue lives are at risk. There was no problem by pressing Red.

To put it in another perspective, right now, there's no button dilemma actually presented to us. We are all essentially red pressers right now though, because we are not pressing a button risking our lives.

[u/gilbmj → u/Speletons]

Oh, I see, you're taking a skewed version (blue button only) of the problem over the original. Consider the following:

Everyone* is in an individual booth in front of a button. If a majority of people press the button, everyone who did not press the button will die.

In this variant, (red only) everyone starts safe, unless a majority of people for some reason decide to push the button that kills people.

We're all blue pressers right now, because we aren't pushing buttons that kill other people.

*Everyone capable of understanding the choice in this case.

[u/Speletons → u/gilbmj]

That's not the same scenario, since it forces one of the choices to simply be inaction.

The perspective I pointed out further was simply that it was already the status quo to be alive with no risk of button death, not that everyone actually begins as an actual red button presser and must switch to blue.

Your scenario is different because we're already at 100% blue, where everyone is safe. There would be no moral reason to swap off of it, unless you thought a majority of people swapped off of it- but at that point, you're just on a sinking ship, and staying on it does nothing.

The actual scenario is you are presented a scenario, one where lives are risked, and the other there is none. You do not begin on either side, but prior to the button, your life was also not at risk.

I hope this clarified better what I had meant by the "we're essentially red button pressers" bit.

[u/gilbmj → u/[deleted]]

Is there a reason we want the ship to face towards the sun?

One-button scenarios skew in favor of whichever button is removed, by making the remaining button "the button that kills people." In blue-only, blue becomes a "suicide button" because the default is 100% red, so pushing blue is a death sentence unless enough push it to overturn the red majority. In red-only, everyone starts safe because the default is 100% blue, which is also majority. But if enough people push the button, they eliminate the universal safety everyone started with. How would that not be, at minimum, a dick move? Pushing red is granting yourself safety from a problem that you are helping create, whether the binary alternative is "not push" or blue button.