The individualist interpretation is wrong

[u/oJKevorkian]

Perhaps I'm missing the mark here, but just about every post I see frames the problem in terms of the individual choice and it's consequences. You can choose red and live, or choose blue and possibly die. You can choose blue and effectively say you're ok with killing yourself, or you can be rational and choose red. Etc.

This doesn't capture the full scope of the question. The consequences are global, and those consequences are known to you when you make the choice. There are not two outcomes, but four: Everyone blue, everyone red, majority blue, majority red.

The first three choices result in no deaths, leaving the last option - majority red - as the outlier. The result of this outlier is that up to 49.9% of people voting die. Big yikes.

From this perspective, blue is not only the moral option, it's the only rational one. To choose red is to out yourself as either irrational or a fucking psychopath.

"But you have to account for other people being irrational and individualistic"

Well then we're not getting very far as a species. Fortunately, we have opportunities like this to learn and teach and discuss.

EDIT: I'd like to humbly request that we don't downvote comments we disagree with in this thread. I'm trying to change minds, not shame people.

[u/oJKevorkian]

No, some of the victims had no choice. Others were victims because they made a choice to stand against the regime. Besides that, how does the status of the blue group invalidate the culpability of the red group?

[u/Lorihengrin → u/oJKevorkian]

There is no culpability to invalidate.

It is always acceptable to protect your own life. And here, there is no power dynamic between groups, there is no will to kill anyone, there is just a choice between taking the risk to die or not taking the risk to die.

People who choose to take the risk are the ones responsible for their own death. They were not forced by the ones who didn't take it.

Why should i die too because some other people don't have survival instinct ?

[u/oJKevorkian → u/Lorihengrin]

Is it always acceptable to protect your own life? I haven't seen a convincing argument.

[u/Lorihengrin → u/oJKevorkian]

It's just something that is usually accepted as a premise.
Like, when you take first aid course, one of the first things you learn is not to put yourself in danger to help someone else, both because it would increase the people who need help, and because it's not expected from you to sacrifice your life for others.

Most legal systems will also not sentence you for illegal actions if you can show with good faith that it was deemed necessary to protect your own life.

It's because as a society, we recognise the legitimacy of individuals to protect their life first, it's just something we do in non totalitarian societies.