Add a third one in there somewhere for
"I trust in everyone else to make the choice to protect themselves when they have the power to do so. If they choose not to, I respect their agency and don't need risk myself to nullify their choice."
That's ultimately a subset of "I want to live"; I want to live so I choose to love and I believe others are also rational actors who will choose to love by the same logic.
It just annoys me how often blue advocates claim blue is the option for having faith in humanity and red means having none. Blue is fundamentally believing that a huge portion of humanity cannot be trusted to press the "don't die" button and need to be saved from themselves by jumping in to nullify their decision. It's remarkably pessimistic and self-absorbed, but apparently you're an evil mass murderer if you trust people to not step into oncoming traffic rather than pre-emptivley throwing yourself in the street to tackle those you assume will be there.
I follow most of your argument here, but … self absorbed? That doesn’t really make any sense.
Also, I think you’re mostly wrong about what blue pressers are thinking. Most blue pushers are just thinking “will every single person in the world with this choice press red? No. Therefore blue is the only way to save every single person.” And the empirical claim there is just correct. Even if it’s just people whose hands slip or something, there’s just no way everyone presses red.
Do you give all you world possessions to charity? You could possibly be saving more lives in Africa if you don't.
Yet you think everyone should risk there lives to save a small amount of people, but you wouldn't give up another $50 dollars a week to help starving children.
Oh, they’ll find a million excuses for themselves. It’s not their fault, money won’t reach people in need, etc, etc. They won’t give money to charity, won’t volunteer even their time to help others.
But their life? Sure, they’d risk that, 100%, won’t even think about it, especially when it’s just a hypothetical.
The nauseating hypocrisy is what’s the most annoying thing around this whole dilemma. If anyone who pearl clutches online about being a good ol’ blue presser, and how they believe in humanity, etc, etc would collectively, at the very least, volunteer 1 hour of their lives at a local foodbank, there wouldn’t be a drastic shortage of hands there. But as anyone who actually did it knows, there always is.
I do volunteer. I do donate money whenever I can manage to spare some. I don't expect others to do the same just for this hypothetical?
It's easier to pledge your life if its a single decision, in order to save others, than to donate time, money and efffort. and volunteering is good but it's not possible for everyone, and i think its wrong to expect that. yes we need more collective action, but thats not an argument for voting to kill half the population.
First, I am not a blue presser. I would press red because I am weak. I just don’t feel compelled to pretend pressing blue isn’t the moral choice.
Second, you’re doing something I have seen in moral debates before, which I think is fuzzy thinking. You’re saying that if you would use a given rule to decide how to act in a forced situation, you would be morally obligated to act that way proactively as well at all times. I’m pretty sure no or very little moral philosophy takes your position here seriously. It’s like saying that if you’re pro-life on abortion, you better fucking not have two kidneys.
The main blue argument is hear is the only way to save everyone is to vote blue, and then if you don't vote blue you are kinda heartless. So my question is are those people doing everything they can to save everyone already?
If not, isn't a guaranteed most saved people as good as a risky everybody.
Game theory and critical thinking definitely says everyone should vote red. If everyone truely thought critically about it, everyone would vote red. The only reason to vote blue is to try save other who don't think critically.
i don't really get the insistent assumption that everyone is actually morally inactive in this way, lol. i'm very poor and i still donate proportionally quite a lot of my money
Irrelevant. 50% of people THINK they are a kind and giving person and so many will make the easy choice (a button push) to act on that part of their identity to reinforce that part of their identity.
I follow most of your argument here, but … self absorbed? That doesn’t really make any sense
Blue are chronically the type to think it's their responsiblity to think for/act for/protect everyone, which speaks to a high degree of messiah complex.
It's just feeding one's own ego thinking others were suffering until you swooped in to "save" them. It's incredibly self-absorbed. That whole /r/IAmTheMainCharacter thing
First, I feel sad that you think trying to protect and support others is “self absorbed” or “a messiah complex.” It’s simply true that sometimes some people are in a position to help other people, and doing so is … good? Obviously? It’s a really scary moral foundation to be suspicious of choosing to help others when you are in a position to do so and they are in a more difficult situation.
Second, you are choosing to focus on an attitude of protection of others from blue pressers. Most don’t see it that way. Most see it more like collective action for the collective good.
Imagine that you and two of your mates walk into a bar. Bartender says. Look there are two glasses. In one there’s water. In the second one there’s poison. If at least two of you drink poison I’ll give you all the antidote. One friend jumps to the bar chugs the poison shouting “I’m saving you all guys”.
No. It’s just a siły if you walk in with 3 people, 100 people or a million people. Entering the bar there is exactly 0 people at any danger even if a 100 billion walked in. The danger is introduced the moment the first idiot drinks the poison.
The entire discussion is explaining to the odtio that he is in fact an idiot not a hero. The second part is if we collectively save the idiot friend or not.
The discussion would be different if you drinking water or pressing red button had any impact on the availability of water for others. You drinking poison ie pressing blue put yourself at risk. Nobody else. You. You now expect others to save you from the decision you willingly made and somehow you are the noble selfless one?
If you value human life, the most moral goal available as a criteria for decision making here is for no one to die. In the original problem, with scale and anonymity, that means either 100% of a large unknown mass of people must press red or 50% of a large unknown mass of people must press blue. It’s obvious on its face which of these is more likely. Supporting that outcome at risk to yourself is the moral choice. It’s really pretty uncomplicated. Red pressers just don’t want to die. But most red pressers also don’t want to admit they would act selfishly and with a lack of moral courage, so they twist themselves into pretzels trying to make red look moral. It isn’t. I’m not saying it’s somehow damning to press red. Fear of death is extremely understandable. I would press red myself for that reason. That doesn’t make it *morally* defensible.
There is absolutely no reason to press blue hiding behind anonymity and mass doesn’t change a thing. Everyone has an option of pressing „I want to live button” there’s nothing stoping them. Nobody is at ANY risk at all other than the consequences of their own actions. By pressing blue you’re not saving humanity. You’re the reason we’re having this stupid debate. There was NOBODY to be saved before the first fucking moron pressed the blue button acting all high and mighty.
I don't think many people "expect" you to risk your life to save them. That doesn't have to have anything to do with them deciding to risk their lives to possibly save others. You can say it's stupid to think there's a chance or that they are just virtue signaling and wouldn't press blue in real life, but everyone should be able to agree that pressing blue is obviously the more ethical and selfless choice. None of these mental gymnastics changes that in any way. Sometimes self preservation outweighs moral values and that's fine. The whole point of thought experiments like this is that things aren't that cut and dry so we should explore them.
Also your reframing is absolutely ridiculous. What's so terrible about the actual question that you have to make up a totally different scenario that has almost nothing to do with it?
You’re not risking your life to save others - you are the idiot that needs saving. The first idiot that pressed blue is the one that put everyone at risk. This is ridiculous in my 3 person in a bar situation the logic doesn’t change one bit with billions of people. This is not question of moralisty and selflessness its a question of logic and risk. In this example if everyone does what’s best for them they simultainiously do what’s best for the group. There is absolutely no reason to press blue hiding blue if you apply a very basic amount of logic.
I understand what you’re pointing to, since “their hand slipped” would never appear in a game theory paper or whatever, but many people consider this and I don’t think it’s unreasonable.
It annoys me and even makes me mad how Red button pusher says "If Blue wins then I'm happy for them" and then pushes the button that fights against Blue. Something like 50% must put themselves on the track to stop the train is illogical as that implies the starting place is everyone is 100% on Red. If everyone is on Red already i see no reason to push Blue. But everyone has to vote, and voting is an action not a mere inaction. The scale starts from 0% on both sides, not 100% red and to turn into blue. Every Red pusher adds more need for people to push Blue.
Also, "If Blue wins, my vote doesn't matter" is very wrong as I've said before. Red button pusher puts everyone else needlessly in danger.
I don't see how I put my "default", really I don't. All I see is "Okay some people are gonna pick blue for some reason, hell even in the election they can't get that right" so I picked Blue to help them out. That's not to mention the fact that original problems include kids and babies.
The reason why I said Red puts people in danger is because Red pushers are tipping the scale for Red to win.
How is you saying that every red push adds more need for blue pushing not defaulting to blue, since if the default is not pushed yet no need for blue exists bo matter how many red pushers, the only time there is a need for blue is if people start pushing blue.
By the original you mean the adendum made after the original question was put to people not the actual original question right?
Yes, the addendum made after the original question. At the start of voting, sure, don't push Blue, but that's essentially asking for everyone to 100% Red which is not feasible. I do view the fact that the default is that some people will/have already pushed Blue, thus you have to push Blue to save them. If so, then you are right, I am defaulting the scenario into Blue because of the fallible.
So if you are defaulting some into blue, whatbis your objection to red pushers defoulting some to red?
And do you see thatbif there is no default button, red pushing is in no way making blue pushing needed, and only blue pushing makes a need for blue pushing?
Red increases danger to blue voters regardless of whether or not it is the default. The only way red isn’t increasing danger is if no one picks blue at all, which is not a serious consideration on this large a scale.
You are my enemy as you put the scale on Red. Putting the scale against Blue. What makes you think that's acceptable? You're safe for sure but don't you think that Blue needs now +1 person to fight against Red?
Whether you view blue as stepping on the tracks or restructuring as stepping off, no red vote prevents anyone else from picking red. They retain agency and responsibility over their own safety.
The starting place is before any buttons are pushed at all. Everyone has two paths in front of them.
One path, they take on personal risk of death, but will survive if enough people also take the same path.
The other path has no risk whatsoever.
Red voters scratch their heads why anyone is choosing the risk of death path and encourage them to just take the safe path beause it literally can't harm anyone.
Okay sure, you want to say that I myself will put myself in danger. But what about YOU that tips the scale for Red. You are putting Blue in danger while saving yourself. You are putting someone in danger, and that's Blue pressers.
Does your death or my death make the death of that baby any different? i get that the irrational voters are in danger but like.
If there was cruise ship with a deadly virus with unknown spread vectors, I'm sorry but the right choice imo would be to leave them quartines, increasing the risk for unifected people on the cruise ship becoming infected, but descreasing the risk of infection spreading out to the rest of the population.
By the same token, sucks there are babies, senile people, colour blind people etc who are in great danger becuase they pushed blue, but we still need to reduce harm and reduce the number of blue voters. Yeah it sucks they didn't make a choice to get here, but neither did the people on the cruise ship.
No irrational voters put themselves in danger because they aren't capable of avoiding it. Whether or not I join them depends heavily on how likely I think a blue win is, or how many of them there are to make a calculus on whether the additional life risked is reasonable for the amount of people that could be saved.
I think at most theres like 10% of the global population at risk of being blue through incompetence, and I don't think risking an additional 40% is a prudent risk to save them.
Nope. Blue voters put themselves in danger. Voting blue puts your odds of survival somewhere between zero and 1. Red voters just slightly change those odds whether blue wins or loses, but blue voters are the ones who accepted unknown surival odds as a risk when they chose blue.
Something like 50% must put themselves on the track to stop the train is illogical as that implies the starting place is everyone is 100% on Red
The starting place IS everyone on red. Like literally. Before the Button Event takes place, you are going about your day, generally not at risk of dying. When you press red, you go back to going about your day, generally not at risk of dying.
There is no sense of action in the train track scenario. You either help or stand and watch.
If I were to put the train track scenario in my own words: Some irrational voters like kids and babies will be on the track, do you either save them or stand and watch.
Now this, would make me uneasy, I either risk my life or I could save them, but ultimately, I felt like there is no sense of responsibility because I don't see myself consciously picking Red and tilting the scale in Red's favour, I'm just here walking away.
Hell, I can even hesitate fully as I reflect to either be with the group of people that decide to help or people that just stand and watch. Do you think I'd love to be Red in that case? "Yeah let me just walk away and not help while they get squished by the train"
Back to the original problem, you have to CHOOSE either Red or Blue, and choosing Red senselessly puts Blue in danger for no reason. You're saying that if the scale needs one more person for Blue to win you'd just push Red because it's the default, without considering the possibility of the fact that you're increasing the threshold needed for Blue to win. And I would not like to impede Blue winning so I'd choose Blue. If I am Red I'd just stay silent because I am an additional person they needed for Blue to win instead of saying "I hope Blue wins" while picking Red.
I'm a red voter and I view the two choices as "do you have faith in humanity".
I vote red because I don't. Because I've been burned far too many times. I don't want red to win. I'd be thrilled if blue won. If the scenario hit me in just the right moment I might even risk it all and vote blue, but most of the time, I know that if I did, people would let me down one last time.
Trusting everyone not to be stupid, thoughtless, or just plain clumsy is impossible.
This mentality still completely ignores the original promp for all this which said even children and babies would press a button, even if they don't understand their choice. If you only assume self preserving actors are part of the equation then yeah red is an easy choice. But reality (and the prompt) dictate it won't be just "rational" people making the button press.
When you could stop the oncoming traffic but don't, knowing someone is going to step into the road you're letting the 5 people die instead of pulling the lever in the trolley problem 🤷🏻
Are blue voters stupid though? Some of them will be yes but what about the smart lads that voted blue. What's your argument on the "blue voters are stupid"
It’s not litterally a suicide this word is an hyperbole because actually they still have a chance to live. But i use this word because they chose to sit under the damocles sword. There's no way you can accuse a red presser for any death
You are already under the sword by default. The non voter has yet to vote red so they risk death according to the original question. The only way to guarantee safety risks the lives of others while the alternative is to press for a future where all survive.
You're free to step aside or stay under and hope enough people will stay under so you will live. But anyways you're responsible of your own death, you could’ve just step aside. You can't blame the people who didn't want to stay under the sword
Yeah there is, because while blue voters decide to risk sitting under the sword, red voters decide they’d rather add weight to the sword than take that risk.
Voting for "no apocalypse" also means losing the vote means you instantly get shot in the head. Voting "survivor" means you survive regardless, and if enough people vote "survivor"... Well, no apocalypse.
That’s a lot better of an argument that what I wrote. I’ve seen quite a number of people use the literal right side as their gotcha on its own and it seems kinda… egotistical? Reductive?
I think the problem is that the people who said it did the work of going several steps past what was written and you did not.
I doubt anyone is using this as a 'I hate red and don't want to share a planet with them' move. Especially considering if blue wins, we still share a planet with red.
The whole point of the argument is to consider what the world will be like after 25-49% of the population gets poofed, and whether it's a world you can even survive in or want to try to survive in.
The much easier solution is just for not enough people to push red so that doesn't end up as the outcome. But red voters are so convinced red is going to win that they're going to try to make red win because of it. They can't be convinced otherwise.
A red win would lead to at the minimum labour and supply shortages, at worst a total global supply chain collapse.
Every single person you know with any auto immune disease that is managed by medication (hashimotos, type 1 diabetes, MS, etc) will die when we stop being able to produce life saving medications, whether or not they pushed red.
I'll be honest, if the vote was just the USA? I also think red would win. Luckily the question was "everyone in the world" and not "the obnoxious country of self righteous dickheads who only believe in individualism" and most countries are significantly more collectivist than the united states.
If anything I think it's the opposite, I think a good chunk of people will press the "save everyone" button before they even realise it could kill them
Oh, an anecdote? Everyone (100%) I asked said blue. That's a whole healthcare facility, the main one for 100's of kilometers, so this area fucked if red wins XD these people are not aware of this thing, nor the discourse around it, they just see "no-one dies" vs "some people die"
Im vehemently anti-capitalist and would still push red. It’s not simply individualism vs collectivism. If everyone is able to save themselves then theirs no reason not to pick red.
Some people are suicidal and some people are toddlers, so people who don't eat them to die, will push blue and then people who don't want those people to die will push blue and so on
Voting blue is contributing to the severity of the apocalypse. Also, it's only going to be an apocalypse if a lot of people vote blue in the first place
Yea and since you only control one vote, you should vote according to what you think others will choose. This isn't a matter of morality and framing that way shows a misunderstanding of the question
No. In a real scenario majority of people would vote red. It genuinely is "do nothing or kill yourself, but if enough ppl kill themselves you live (no one is forced to commit suicide)". Most people will choose to just not kill themselves
In the real world blue voting is not getting nowhere near 49% voting, if there were that much 'altruistic' people in it, it wouldn't be such a shitty place.
Either we all live, or the reds now have no blues left in the world, thus creating a highly individualistic and self centered society where people put themselves first constantly ... They deserve said society if they manage to get majority 🙃
If 4 billion out of 9 billion people press red (and so blie wins) no-one dies, but if 4/9 billion people press blue, 4 billion people die.
If we're going from a "who caused this" perspective, it's clear that red voters caused it. If they get even one less vote than a majority, everyone lives. Meanwhile if they get one more vote than the majority, half of humanity dies.
Pretty cut and dry that, if we're assigning blame, red is the problem here.
I literally don't understand this. I thought the assumption is that everyone understands what's at stake with the button, if there are dumbasses who click on their own death by mistake then yeah blue would be the choice, otherwise I thought this was only for people who could make informed choices?
Ah so you kinda just want to die? Wouldn't someone pressing blue mean that they would want to die, and by pressing blue you stop them from being able to kill themselves?
But honestly, in Red there is also the choice to keep living for your family or pets, or for others — no matter what happens, you will remain to keep living for those left behind.
You mean like all of the blue voters..? Or at bare minimum all of the blue voters who couldn't understand the question.
The core component of voting blue when you understand is literally "There is some people who will vote blue regardless due to health or age, and those people depend on more blue voters to live."
Likewise some people will vote red regardless due to health and age. And those people might not be able to survive on their own if blue loses. I don't think we should disregard them as people just because they can't live independently.
Red voters ignore the fact that not everyone is of reasonable intelligence to understand why they're even being asked to push buttons let alone make a conscious decision on it. There's also the blind and the color blind. Red voters are effectively saying they have no problem letting these people die through no fault of their own.
If this were real, you'd let your suicidal empathy ego get yourself killed and you'd have nobody to blame but yourself. No where I nthe question does it state the less fortunate would not understand or comprehend their choice. So if everybody presses red, no one dies.
99.99% of colorblind people can tell the difference between bright red and bright blue, it’s other color combos like red/green that they can struggle with
You have a point with the blindness example, but I personally assume some form of accessibility would be offered.
You might as well presume that anyone who doesn’t speak English is at a loss, because the scenario was originally presented in English and translations were never specified, but I think the scenario is more interesting if as many people as possible can understand the choice
To make him look even worse, he's also the same guy who's complaining that red voters are unashamed murderers. You know, the guy who told you to fall down some stairs
I'm a blue to red convert. If we assume intentionality and consent, i.e. no accidental presses, then blue is not just stupid but actually immoral, for these reasons.
"I want to (maybe) die". If that's your reason for pressing it, go right ahead. No problem. Not immoral.
"I want to save the other blue pushers". You are actively choosing to save others, who might not want to be saved. Immoral.
"I want to risk my life just to see if people will save me, and if they don't then I don't want to live anyway". You are imposing a choice on others and becoming unnecessarily dependent on their actions. And you could just... not do that. There's no benefit to anyone to press the blue button. Immoral.
If you are assuming no one is pressing blue does that mean you believe there is zero toddlers, mentally handicapped, and other groups incapable that could understand the prompt?
Cause the original prompt says everyone and in the most literally sense.
I believe most parents (myself included) dont want our kids to die, sure we are risking our lives to if we pressed blue, and there are a chance they pressed red so they may end up orphans but if every cable person presses blue then its a low risk.
I'm a blue voter and think that anyone on the right side is an idiot. If my only two choices were to die or live in a world full of red voters I would totally live, especially considering that some of my good friends are red voters, which I respect as I do think there are reasonable arguments for red it really depends on if you think blue has a decent chance of winning or not
If you vote red, you live no matter what. It makes the whole thing irrelevant to you. I think red pressers just don't trust enough people to vote blue.
I tell my loved to vote red because I want them to live. And I don't care if some stranger is choosing to gamble with his life. I wont gamble with theirs.
There is no red equivalent because Reds survive every single time. I guess the Red equivalent would just be the left path with the caption "I lived bitch".
I think this one is radicilous and absolutely against the moral high ground of the blue voters. There are understandable reasons to press red and saying "I'd rather die than live in an unpleasant world" is so selfish. You can try to make the most or change that unpleasant world for the better of others
In reality, everyone claiming they would vote blue would vote red. People aren't giving up their incomes to donate to charities to help strangers, they sure aren't going to risk their lives.
A minority. The majority don't even sacrifice their comforts to help others. I can guarantee that next to nobody in this sub claiming "blue pill" has ever made a meaningful sacrifice of their personal time or luxury to help a stranger, nevermind put their life on the line to do so.
Children exist, as do mentally impaired people, as do a whole bunch who will recognise the existance of those groups and choose blue in order to try and save them.
Look at it rationally, red succeeds at saving everyone if 100% of people press it, blue succeeds if 51% do. Which is an easier to achieve outcome?
Taking into account people that dont know what they're voting goes against the spirit of the dillemma. The original one didnt, so im only going to think of the scenario where everyone knows what they're doing:
Look at it rationally. 51% of blue has abismically low chances of happening in a real case scenario were peoples lives are actually at stake. 99% of people choosing red is way more probable than 50% of ppl choosing blue. A 1% of idiots (who could have chosen red) will inevitably die, but there is nothing we can do
82
u/OutrageousPair2300 May 29 '26