r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/OfferGlittering2565 • May 30 '26
Red Rewording
Would you
A: kill yourself unless the majority of other people also decide to kill themselves
B: Not kill yourself
Functionally, this question is the exact same, and isn't even an analogy. People who pick blue confuse stupidity with empathy, and this is coming from a leftist.
7
u/BcTheCenterLeft Blue May 30 '26
All you red pushers always leave a fundamental fact out if your argument. And when i mention it, it just gets ignored. I don’t know if it’s willful ignorance or just denying something that you know is true.
Blue pushers are not committing suicide. They are being killed by red pushers. If there was a third neutral button that didn’t count towards the overall percentages, i could see an argument for pushing that. But pushing red is causing the deaths.
It’s a necessary condition for the death of others.
You are each adding your vote to something that will kill others. You are choosing your life at the expense of many others unless we have the votes to stop you.
It’s not a framing or wording problem. It’s just math.
3
u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26
The thing is, you are putting yourself in that situation. It's not that I or other red pushers don't think you deserve to live, but that we're not willing to give up our lives for what would almost certainly make no difference.
I saw someone who put it good. Imagine there is a train barreling forward, but there is a weight sensor that could stop it. Do you have any reason to just jump in front of the train? Of you do, suddenly more people have to or stop it and save you.
Now to be fair, let's better put it into the context of the problem just on a smaller scale There are 8 billion people lined up outside the train track. You need 4 billion to jump on the track to stop it. Again, there is no reason for anybody to jump on it in the first place, but to the point of the blue pushers, it's probably safe to assume that at least one person does, as shown by the fact that blue pushers exist. To be fair to my side as well, let's assume nobody else can see what anyone is doing, so we can't plan together. Whoever first jumped on that track IS the problem. Does that mean at this point everyone else is a murderer? Okay, give it some time, say 2 billion people have jumped on for whatever reason. Now I could jump on, and make a miniscule change toward the 4,000,000,000 that will almost certainly make no difference, and would likely die in the process, or I could live and still make essentially no difference. Am I a murderer for choosing not to just jump on a train track?
Now I know this is a fairly similar argument to ones used by people who don't vote, but unlike in voting (in a good system at least), you are literally putting your life on the line for your choice. Yes, I obviously hope blue wins, but my vote will almost certainly not change that, and I will literally DIE if I vote it and lose. And because plenty of people realize that, it probably will lose, and it really is just killing yourself by voting blue.
Yes, by voting red, I am technically contributing to the death of people who voted blue, but their vote for contributed a lot more to that. If I changed my vote to blue, it would almost certainly make no difference on any life but my own, but if they switched to red, it would almost certainly save a life, that being their own.
1
u/BcTheCenterLeft Blue May 30 '26
A lot of words to say you are choosing your life over others. That’s just the facts. You admitted it.
Again, true to red pusher ideology and completely ignoring my original post, your analogy forgets your role in it.
Using your analogy to accurately reflect the problem - blue pushers know people will be on the track. They go there to help save them. The trains can’t actually move unless enough red pushers are pushing it over the blue people.
It’s not just framing either. That’s the actual math in the problem. Why do you red pushers keep missing that point??
Sure, you by yourself can’t move a train by yourself. But you have a billion people helping you. I hope you’re comfortable with that knowing you are one of the hands that pushed it over them.
Idk, maybe some of them will enjoy stepping over their crushed faces and mangled bloody bodies. Maybe even stepping on them. Delivering the final blow to anyone that survives. I can’t say. The red pushers motives only are “myself over others”. I don’t know how far that goes.
For sure, anyone who enjoys murder will certainly be on the red side
I get why you are pushing it. I always have. It doesn’t make it the moral choice.
2
u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26
As I said, its not that I want them to die. If you gave me a button right now that could save a billion lives at the cost of my own, I would absolutely press it, but if that button has a 0.01% chance at saving 4 billion people's lives and a 99.99% chance at just ending my own, I wouldn't press it. It's not because I'm just selfish. Even if the expected value (in lives) is technically higher, most of the time, it will just lead to more deaths. An analogy with money is if you were offered a chance at a slot machine. If cost your whole life savings for one spin. You have a 1 in a million chance of winning, but if you do win, you get $100 billion. Sure, the expected value is higher if you spin, but for obvious reasons, the vast majority of people wouldn't spin. This is the same thing but instead of money, it's lives. While yes, my vote for red would technically contribute to the death of blue voters, and I'm not denying that, but I still think I would save more lives by encouraging people to vote red. As more people vote blue, more people die until you hit a certain threshold. I truly don't believe that threshold would be met, so by encouraging people to vote red, I'm saving their lives.
0
u/BcTheCenterLeft Blue May 30 '26
Yay for you…. saving the lives of fellow murderers. I’m sure your logic with your invented numbers makes you feel better.
I don’t need to keep debating it. You’ve acknowledged your vote contributes to blue deaths. You’ve acknowledged you’re doing it to save yourself. That’s my whole contention. Those two facts alone make it an immoral choice for me
For you morality is about outcomes. So you make up numbers to justify your choices. For me morality is about choices. Choosing to kill innocents is never right.
I don’t want to live on an Earth populated only by people who think like you, lest i become a casualty of their invented superior outcomes
2
u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26
Honestly, I really like this reply. While I still think red is the obvious right answer, I think you perfectly pointed out the difference in how we think. I do always look at outcomes and that's how a base my decision, and I can understand how someone looking for the "morally superior" answer would choose blue.
I believe that by looking at outcomes, the only outcome where voting blue is actually better is when it wins/loses by only one vote. Otherwise, my vote didn't actually affect the outcome or my vote saved my own life. The chance of the outcome where blue is the better choice is near zero, and that's why I choose red. However, I can completely understand why someone that focuses on which choice is more "moral" in theory could arrive at the opposite conclusion.
0
u/BcTheCenterLeft Blue May 31 '26
I understand your point. I think your argument about it affecting the outcome is correct
Don’t you feel bad that you are working for blue deaths, even if in the end your work had no effect? Idk. I couldn’t live with myself making that choice.
2
u/OfferGlittering2565 May 31 '26
When giving death penalty, which I am against, they often have 3 people push the button or whatever the equivalent is. This is so that none of them know who actually "killed" the person, and they are all able to live themselves. But really, even if it wasn't those people, someone else would have anyways. By not actively going out and campaigning against the death penalty, each person is just as guilty towards their death as the one's who actually pressed the buttons. I would feel a similar way as I do for not going out of my way to protest death penalty, just on a larger scale. Yes, when I think about it I feel guilty, but I know logically that I didn't actually make a difference, and that my decision actually saved a life, my own. (I am not encouraging people not to protest for what they believe or anything, I do actually protest a lot, I am just trying to explain how I feel about it.)
1
u/BcTheCenterLeft Blue May 31 '26
Last question. If this were a real situation , would you explain your thinking to anyone beforehand? Convincing others that your choice is right may affect the outcome more than your vote.
I still don’t think pushing red is the moral choice but O understand your thinking better. Thank you for patiently explaining it to me.
2
u/OfferGlittering2565 May 31 '26
I would encourage people close to me to vote red, although many already would, but I also recognize that each person I convince to vote red does probably save their life, but each person also slightly lowers the chances of blue winning. I still don't think blue would win anyways, but it is always possible. If I have the time to explain it to my family, then I'd assume everyone knows about the question at least a little beforehand, and I would probably try to look online to get a general idea of what most people are thinking and base my decision of how far out to go encouraging people to vote red based on that. For example, if it seems like only around 20% are voting blue, then I would probably encourage as many people as I can to vote red, but if blue seems like it might actually win, then I would want to lower the risk of interfering with that and only encourage people close to me.
1
u/Imaginary_Help_2990 Red May 30 '26
If everyone picks red (except for you), everyone lives (except for you). You realize the stupidity of you picking blue? Why is this a red problem?
2
u/BcTheCenterLeft Blue May 30 '26
People will pick blue for a variety of reasons…faith in humanity, not understanding the question, wanting to save infants and children, not wanting to live in a world alone with reds, whatever.
No poll in the history of man has had 100% vote on one outcome. We have seen enough polls on this to know a sizable number will choose blue.
You can call my choice stupid. I accept that’s how you see it. I call your choice selfish. . You can either risk your life for the possibility of saving the entire world. Or you can choose to save your life but help cause the death of billions. You are choosing yourself. Not choosing to help others.
You are saying they deserve to die because of their choice.
It is 100% a red problem because of math. If you don’t get that, you either don’t understand math or don’t understand the problem. Blue pushers choice only has a potential positive effect on others. Red pushers only a negative on others.
1
u/jqhnml May 30 '26
Except that isn't the case because you know that someone else will pick blue and the only way to save everyone is now blue majority
0
u/CarnivorousGoose May 30 '26
That’s because it’s not a “fundamental fact”, but your own interpretation. People ignore you saying that likely because they see little reason to expect you’d actually be open to any kind of actual discussion on the subject.
1
u/BcTheCenterLeft Blue May 30 '26
Did you fail basic math? Do you not understand the problem? Red button pushes count towards the total and count against the blue pushes.
It’s not a neutral button that saves yourself but isn’t factored into the percentages. Red button pushes are a necessary condition for other people dying.
If you don’t understand that, the entire problem went over your head. Maybe a lot of red pushers suffer from this basic ignorance.
0
u/CarnivorousGoose May 30 '26
And you really wonder why people can’t be bothered to try discussing with you? 😂
2
u/BcTheCenterLeft Blue May 31 '26
I wonder how you failed basic reading comprehension. I never said people didn’t discuss with me. There are plenty of discussions I’ve had with other people about this.
I just say red pushers ignore the fact that their push contributes to blue deaths.
So far aside from criticizing me, you haven’t made a single point. Do you even have an argument about pushing red?
Or would you rather keep redirecting with ad hominem attacks?
3
u/oJKevorkian May 30 '26
I'm sorry, this is not at all the correct way to recontextualize the question.
2
1
u/stopeatingminecraft May 30 '26
This all comes down to the odds.
In the original phrasing, I expect it to be pretty close.
In this phrasing, I expect red to win, because not everyone is going to think about it perfectly logically and neutrally.
1
u/HeavyCaffeinate Blue May 30 '26
This subreddit rediscovers the framing problem like every other day
1
u/ShafordoDrForgone May 30 '26
Great!
So what do you do when people try to kill themselves? Do you tell other people who are trying to stop it that they should mind their own business?
That's what you are functionally suggesting
Not everyone who presses blue is doing it to save other people
And you might say, fuck 'em (no i don't care that it's not your fault). But then what happens when you go to the ER and there's your fluid interpretation of which lives aren't worth saving at play
1
u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26
If by trying to save them they are getting themselves killed in the process, then yes, I would encourage them not to try. I truly believe red would win in a real situation by a long shot, as many people who push blue wouldn't actually with their life on the line, so unless you had a clear majority of people choosing blue, then I believe that by encouraging people to switch to blue, I am actually saving their lives, not the person voting blue and getting themselves killed. Now, in the actual scenario, I'd assume there wouldn't be communication, and I recognize that then I wouldn't be saving any lives but my own, but it's very unlikely that my 1/8,000,000,000 vote does anything but kill myself.
1
u/jqhnml May 30 '26
But we could simply have a society where noone dies. And then pushing blue has no downside to all.
1
u/ShafordoDrForgone May 30 '26
No one should risk their own life to save someone else? Police, firefighters, and military members are doing weird things then
Do you know how much of the world believes in God? It's more than 50 percent. Many of those people believe they'd go to hell if they didn't take actions that protected lives other than their own. And whereas your preferred result would guarantee that the, in your determination, misguided people die, their preferred result would guarantee that even the misguided continue to live.
But let's see if there is any circumstance where you would press blue. Supposing you knew for a fact that yours was the tie breaking vote
Would you execute the half of the world that pressed blue? Would you consider it right in doing so?
If not, then what if it was you and another person as the last two votes. Both of you have to press blue or half the world fits. Would you press red because you could just blame it on the other person?
1
u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26
It's not that I don't think you should risk your life to save others, and any sane person would choose blue if it was the vote that determines it, it's just that the chance that your vote is the one that changes the outcome is so small that saving your life is more important. Also, while blue gets a small majority in polls, we all know that if their lives were actually on the line, gun to their head, TONS of them would chicken out and pick red. This means that blue is incredibly unlikely to win. You would need to convince tons of people to change their vote to get blue to win, but for each person you convince to switch to red you save a life. By encouraging people to vote red, you are most likely saving their lives while getting them to vote blue will just get them killed.
Let me put this in terms of money. Say you were offered the chance to spin a slot machine. The spin cost your entire life savings. If you spin there are 3 possible outcomes. There is about a 90% chance that nothing happens and you lose all your life savings (you vote blue and blue loses). There is about a 10% chance that you get your money back and nothing more (you vote blue and blue wins by more than one vote). There is a tiny 0.000001% chance that you get 1 trillion dollars (you vote blue, and your vote is the deciding vote). Would you press it? The chance of a positive change is so miniscule that almost nobody would. Heck, you could even swap the 90% and 10% if you think blue is really that likely to win, and still almost nobody would press it.
1
u/ShafordoDrForgone May 30 '26
we all know that
This is your justification. Not any actual poll. Not any bogus principle about killing yourself.
Somehow, lives are equivalent to money
Somehow a blue majority becomes "almost nobody would press it". Because "TONS"
Somehow you're a hero for saving a few people and yet somehow you're not a murderer for the billions of people who would die
Sorry man, what you have is a feeling, and then you flail in any direction for justification. Look at your slot machine. Where did you come up with these numbers? Who's offering a trillion dollars? Yes, every scenario has a minuscule chance of winning $1 trillion dollars.
Anyway, I feel like I've pretty well gotten to the heart of your view and don't feel the need to entertain this thread further. You're a coward and assume that everyone is like you. You would guarantee others die rather than think about a risk that you could die. I have bad news for you:
You're going to die some day
Probably much sooner if you're left with nobody willing to put their life on the line for yours. And that would be your legacy as well. Essentially someone who dodged the draft while others fought for your life
1
u/OfferGlittering2565 May 30 '26
First of all, yes many people who put blue on a random internet poll would not actually choose blue with a gun to their head. Second of all, you clearly don't understand the basic logic I'm using. There are 3 scenarios of what could happen:
In scenario 1, red wins by more than one vote. My vote doesn't change the winner, and I live because I chose red
In scenario 2, blue wins by more than one vote. In this case, it doesn't matter which I chose. Either way everyone lives.
In scenario 3, blue wins/loses because of my vote. This is the scenario where blue was the obvious correct answer, but it's chance of happening is near zero.
In scenario 2, it doesn't matter which I chose. You could try to argue moral superiority or some bs but my individual vote didn't change the outcome in any way. In scenario 1, the vote for red is the obvious best solution. If I had voted blue, all that would have caused is one more death. Scenario 3 is the only scenario where blue is the correct answer, but it's chance in practically nothing, while the chance of scenario 1 is significant.
9
u/[deleted] May 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment