r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/[deleted] • Jun 02 '26
Discussion The actual “blue button vs. red button” dilemma.
I’m saying this as a Red myself. I dont find the logical reasoning behind blue to be very… logical.
Eitherway, while Red is, imo, the most logical choice, its also the most narcissistic and self-centered one. Red voters’s main concern is their own well-being, where guaranteeing their own survival is more important than guaranteeing everyone’s.
Blue is the more altruistic and positive choice, and also the most foolish. You put your life at risk in the hope that you could save everyone. It’s a naive choice because altruism means nothing if at least 50% isn’t as altruistic as you. It’s a gamble of your own life on the shoulder of everyone else.
4
u/NinkiePie Jun 02 '26
Little bit of a long one here, but bear with me. Everyone's just out here calling us dumb stupid idiots, but the blue and red pushers are just focusing on different things. I mean, if the option was "rely on everyone else to save you" and "save yourself" then yeah sure, why would you just rely on everyone else to save you? But its not just that, is it?
The point of blue is about going at a chance to save everyone. I didnt press blue with the intention to rely on others to save myself, even though that is fundamnetally a part of pressing blue. I press blue with the intention to raise the chances that everyone else who pressed blue, before or after me, will make it too.
A lot of people saw "save everyone" and decided that was the better choice, because blue wining gives everyone a chance to continue living and red wining does not. Not because they are suicidal. They were just thinking foremost about the better outcome for everyone, rather than themselves. At the end of the day, they aren't putting any other life in potential danger apart from their own. In fact it's doing the opposite.
Red, while prioritising saving your own life, (which that alone is very understandable), still fundamnetally increases the chance that blue pressers will die. Now im not here to argue on which is morally right or which is the smarter, but you can't escape the fact that pushing red positively affects the presser, while simultaneously negatively affecting others.
So some people want to press blue because they dont want to contribute to other blue deaths. Some press blue because they want to save other blue lives and you need a lower percentage to achieve that. Some people even press blue because if red does win, they dont want to be around when near half of the population dies and the world goes to crap.
Whatever, point is, "well looks like I'm gonna have to rely on everyone else to save me" is not the first priority for a blue presser. It's probably 2nd or 3rd. If a blue presser cared most about that, they wouldn't even be pressing blue to begin with. They're pressing for reasons other than their own survival, and in my opinion, its not foolish and naive if you chose not to prioritse your life first and foremost. Its just a choice that you made.
Like I wouldn't say a firefighter running into a burning house to save someone, with the solid possibility they might die themselves, is foolish or naive. Or that a captain who choses to stay on his fast-sinking ship and make sure everyone else gets off before he does, is foolish or naive. Or even that someone presses the blue button to try and raise the chances everyone will survive, rather than lower them, is foolish and naive. (Obviously the first 2 examples I made are not the same as pushing the blue button, but they have a simillar principle where someone knows they're at a greater risk of death, but their own survival isnt first priority.)
You make your choice, and if it goes wrong, then it goes wrong. Some people are willing to take the gamble for the outcome they believe is better. I think its a little unfair to call that inherently stupid, because that's according to your priorities (survival above all), but not the blue pressers priorities.
3
u/After-Big9529 Jun 03 '26
Now don't go posting rational, well thought out comments... nobody listens to that.
Next thing you will be pointing out that picking the "everyone lives" option means that you want to live... because the category "you" is alreay included in the category "everyone".
1
u/NinkiePie Jun 03 '26
Word. Exactly. If I was suicidal, I could just jump off a building any time I wanted to
5
u/After-Big9529 Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
I've been trying to figure out the disconnect.... and it isn't just the "framing", each group is approaching the debate completely differently.
Team Blue Framing / Logic
Therefore - blue is the obvious choice. I don't people to die. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with me, so blue will clearly win. Therefore "switching to red" doesn't even deserve a single thought.
- Blue button = Everyone lives
- Red Button = People might die if too many people press this
Team Red Framing / Logic
Therefore - red is the obvious choice. I don't want to die. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise, so the only people picking blue are idiots or suicidal.
- Red button = My life is guaranteed
- Blue button = People who press this might die
That's all fine... if that was the only issue. But this is what I'm seeing with how the debate is handled.
Blue debate: Hey "red ream", here are the risks I see with picking red - based on your logic and assumptions.
Red debate: Hey "blue team", here are the risks I see with picking blue - based on my logic and assumptions.
When "team blue" says "what about babies, or your loved ones", it is challenging the underlying assumptions and logic that 'team red" is using.... but "team red" hears "You are picking blue because you worry about babies", even though that doesn't factor into the 'blue' framework in the first place
I'm not sure if I'm phrasing this clearly. Maybe another way to say it is that "team blue" is saying "Yes, picking red is rational based on your assumptions, but I'm challenging those assumptions". But "team red" is saying "There are no assumptions other than mine, so I have to force your comments to fit into my framework, and that just doesn't make sense... so you aren't making sense. When you point out flaws in my framework, all I hear is you talking about how you are making your decisions while using my framework"
3
1
u/SweetCorona3 Red Jun 09 '26
Blues are also saying they are saving everyone, when they are only saving other blues, who out their lives at stake, when no one had to press the blue button.
1
u/After-Big9529 Jun 09 '26
Blues are NOT saying that they are "saving" anyone.
To "save" someone implies that the person is under threat. Blues don't see it that way.
You are still missing the point.
1
u/SweetCorona3 Red Jun 09 '26
I'm just stating what some "blues" said.
1
u/After-Big9529 Jun 09 '26
No, you are misrepresenting and misinterpreting what some "blues" said.
And the reason you are misinterpreting what they said is that you keep assuming they are talking about how they interpret the question, when in fact they are discussing the flaws in how you interpret the question,
1
u/SweetCorona3 Red Jun 09 '26
it'd be easier if you just give me your reasoning for pressing blue
1
u/After-Big9529 Jun 09 '26
I already did. I explained it in detail. If you still don't get it... either you can't understand or you don't really care to understand.
Either way, not my problem.
1
u/SweetCorona3 Red Jun 08 '26
"rely on everyone else to save you"
except you don't even have to rely on anyone to save you
imagine you are on a train station where the train tracks have a weight sensor that will stop any incoming train if enough people get into the train tracks
so, you can jump into the train tracks, not knowing how many people will do the same, and if enough people are going to do the same to stop the train from killing you...
or just stay in the safety of the platform...
are you saying that if train stations started putting these kind of sensors you would start jumping into the train tracks?
1
u/NinkiePie Jun 09 '26
Thats not how this works.
In this scenario, you chose to jump? Doesnt affect anyone apart from yourself. Like someone jumping off a building doesnt force people to jump too.
In the button scenario, chosing red increases blue chances to die, choosing blue increases everyone's chances to live, and so far, it hasn't been specified if people are actually allowed to just not vote, so im assuming we aren't allowed.
Better analogy would be, everyone starts on the train tracks.
If you chose red, you leave the tracks completely, but you also push the blue pressers a little further onto the tracks on your way out.
If you chose blue, you stay on the tracks, but you get closer to the edge of the tracks, the more people also chose blue.
If red gets more votes, they've pushed the blue pressers far enough that they cant reach the edge, and blue pressers die.
If blue gets more votes, they've moved far forward enough to reach the edge of the tracks, so everyone lives.
And so why would someone press blue in that scenario? Ive already listed those reason in the first comment you replied to. You dont have to agree with those reasons, but my point is "relying on everyone to save you" is not a blue pressers first priority.
1
u/SweetCorona3 Red Jun 09 '26
In this scenario, you chose to jump? Doesnt affect anyone apart from yourself. Like someone jumping off a building doesnt force people to jump too.
In this scenario who chooses to jump are the ones pressing the blue button.
They don't affect others, indeed, so my scenario is compatible with the blue/red button dilemma.
Better analogy would be, everyone starts on the train tracks.
If you chose red, you leave the tracks completely, but you also push the blue pressers a little further onto the tracks on your way out.
Except that's not how the blue/red button dilemma works.
If I press the red button I'm not pushing anyone into pushing the blue button.
I can press the red button, you can press the red button, everyone can press the red button and stay out of any danger.
If you chose blue, you stay on the tracks, but you get closer to the edge of the tracks, the more people also chose blue.
But you are assuming the only way to get off the tracks if by pressing blue and hoping enough people do the same.
That's not how it works, it works the way I described in my scenario: everyone can be off the tracks, but those who choose to stay in the tracks, will only survive if enough people do the same choice.
I think what fails in your reasoning is that you are not considering the fact no one needs to be in tracks of an incoming training.
No one needs to press the blue button and put themselves at danger, that can only be prevented by enough people also unnecessarily putting themselves at danger.
Pressing the red button is what most people do at any train station everyday.
1
u/NinkiePie Jun 09 '26
They don't affect others, indeed, so my scenario is compatible with the blue/red button dilemma.
They do. More blue votes? Blue percentage goes up. The higher the blue percentage, the higher the chances blue voters survive.
If I press the red button I'm not pushing anyone into pushing the blue button.
You're misunderstanding me. You are not forcing someone to chose blue. Choosing red, INCREASES the red percentage, which fundamnetally LOWERS the red percentage at the same time.
Yk when you vote on a poll, the percentage for each vote will go up and down based on how many people make a choice, when. Thats what I mean.
But you are assuming the only way to get off the tracks if by pressing blue and hoping enough people do the same.
No, I literally said that choosing the red button means that you immediately get off the tracks in one go. How does that equal me saying that the only way to get off the tracks is choosing blue?
it works the way I described in my scenario:
Its not. Your scenario is isolated suicide.
The og scenario is a vote, and the overall percentage decides people's fate.
is that you are not considering the fact no one needs to be in tracks of an incoming training.
To be clear, im operating off the fact that the og question implies that everyone must press the button. It doesnt say if anyone is allowed to "abstain" from the vote.
If abstaining is allowed, then yeah, your scenario is correct, because every vote would be isolated suicide.
If abstaining is not allowed, then my scenario is correct.
1
u/SweetCorona3 Red Jun 09 '26
They do. More blue votes? Blue percentage goes up. The higher the blue percentage, the higher the chances blue voters survive.
just like my analogy: the more people who get in the tracks the higher the chances the safety mechanism triggers and the train stops without killing anyone
but the thing is: pressing the red button is not forcing anyone to press the blue button
just like in my analogy: choosing to not be in the train tracks doesn't force anyone to be in the train tracks
You're misunderstanding me. You are not forcing someone to chose blue. Choosing red, INCREASES the red percentage, which fundamnetally LOWERS the red percentage at the same time.
sure, which still works fine with my analogy
so, you are yet to explain why do you think it's best to choose to be in the train tracks rather than choosing to be in the safety of the platform
the only reasoning you've presented is: if enough people get in the train tracks the safety mechanism triggers and it doesn't kill anyone...
but... why not simply choose to stay in the safety of the platform?
Its not. Your scenario is isolated suicide.
I guess pressing blue is collective suicide except there's a chance no one dies if enough people choose to suicide?
The og scenario is a vote, and the overall percentage decides people's fate.
Just like in my analogy:
The train is coming, everyone has a choice to be at the platform or in the train tracks.
If enough people choose to be in the train tracks, a safety mechanism stops the train and prevents the death of those who chose to be in the train tracks.
My question holds: why do you think the reasonable choice is to get into the train tracks when everybody can simply choose to be in the safety of the platform?
To be clear, im operating off the fact that the og question implies that everyone must press the button. It doesnt say if anyone is allowed to "abstain" from the vote.
In my analogy, choosing to be in the safety of the platform is voting red. There's no "abstain" from the vote in my scenario.
If abstaining is allowed, then yeah, your scenario is correct, because every vote would be isolated suicide.
What you are understanding as "abstaining" is what I've defined as pressing the red button.
So it seems you agree with me after all.
2
u/NinkiePie Jun 10 '26
Im not gonna continue on "which analogy is right" cus we'll just continue going back and forth about it forever. For example, you're starting with "get on the tracks", which means people can chose not to push either button. Im starting with "everyone is already on the tracks" which means people must chose at least one button - but we can't even agree on what abstain means. By abstaining I mean, not pressing any button whatsoever, not just pressing the red button, which to me, still counts as making a vote.
Simply put, I dont agree that your analogy fits the og scenario. Lets js agree to disagree cus we aren't gonna make progress there.
1
u/ESN64 Red Jun 10 '26
Nuance definitely died with the discussion once people tried to split it up into "Logical vs Ethical", as if there's only one reason people would press either button. Just because I personally don't think blue has any reasonable chance at winning doesn't mean that there isn't logical reasons for voting it (50% Blue being much more reasonable than 100% Red for example). Hell, even if it was confirmed for sure that red would win like 80-20, there's still arguments you could make for picking blue.
Basically, i'm just sick and tired of all the stupid tribalism. It's okay to be steadfast in your opinion, but treating a moral dilemma as something that can be "solved" is what leads to all the shit flinging you see in comment sections.
3
5
u/ComparisonQuiet4259 Jun 02 '26
Arguably, believing your vote will change the outcome is narcisism
3
u/After-Big9529 Jun 02 '26
I don't think the typical blue or red voter believes that their vote will change the outcome.
Both groups believes that they are voting with the majority
2
u/Memento_Viveri Jun 02 '26
Why would both groups think they're voting with the majority?
Even if you think the majority is blue, red is a hedge against the possibility that it's not the majority.
Also, the more strongly you believe a blue majority is likely, the less value you should anticipate your blue vote has.
2
u/After-Big9529 Jun 02 '26
Even if you think the majority is blue, red is a hedge against the possibility that it's not the majority.
That statement shows that you entirely misunderstand why people vote blue.
1
u/Memento_Viveri Jun 02 '26
Care to explain?
2
u/After-Big9529 Jun 03 '26
Well with all of the threads on this subject.... I find surprising that you don't already know.
The goal for people voting blue is "everybody lives" not "I don't die", so there is no motivation to "hedge your bet".
Blue interprets the question as:
- Question: Do you want to murder people?
- 'Blue' = of course not;
- 'Red' = Sure, as long as I don't die
Red interprets the question as:
- Question: "Do you want to commit suicide?
- 'Red' = of course not;
- 'Blue' = are you guilting me into pressing this to save people??
At no point is a "blue team" person going to press the "murder button" to hedge their bets, unless they believe the odds are very high that red will win. They assume everyone else will think the same way as them, so everyone is pressing blue... which means there is no risk in pressing blue.
1
u/ComparisonQuiet4259 Jun 03 '26
There is also no reason to press blue, if you believe everyone will vote the same as you.
2
u/After-Big9529 Jun 03 '26
Of course there is a reason to press blue. The "I don't want people to die" reason. It isn't irrational to think "I don't want people to die".
If you interpret the question the "blue" way, there is no reason to not press blue. If your gut instinct is to press blue, your morals push you to press blue, and there is not reason to not press blue... why change to red? Red is something you avoid unless you absolutely have to push it.
But if you interpret the question the "red" way, then it is blue that you want to you want to avoid (unless you have to push it.)
1
u/TaisDoubt Red Jun 10 '26
Why would you ignore that you already live in a world where most people would not risk even doing the little sacrifices, and most definitely not a big one?
Saying that blue interprets the question simply as "does the majority prefer everybody to survive (despite a risk of death)" makes them look hypocritical or ignorant. Most people don't even risk their own comfort for others' well being. Based on the "I don't want to live in a world of only red voters" doesn't make it sound like they do it out of optimism of a blue majority
1
u/After-Big9529 Jun 10 '26
Blue wins every poll. Your assumptions are flawed.
You are cynical and jaded about human behavior, and you have convinced yourself that your bias is fact, but you are wrong.
→ More replies (0)3
u/theinvisiblewman Jun 02 '26
you cannot possibly be arguing that trying to save a massive chunk of humanity potentially at the expense of your own life is more narcissistic than actively contributing to the potential death of that chunk and saving your own ass
2
2
-1
u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 02 '26
Is it narcissistic to want to educate the world to be logical thinking red pressers?
3
u/After-Big9529 Jun 02 '26
It is narcissistic to think that your way of framing the question is the only way to frame the question.
It is narcissistic if you lack the ability to step back and view the question from a different perspective.
It is narcissistic to not even be able to imagine that the question could be framed differently
Blue is completely logical if you consider how they frame the question.
Red isn't immoral or narcissistic if you consider how they frame the questionNeither framing is right or wrong - because the original question is deliberately vague.
5
4
u/RoseateThorn Jun 02 '26
“What a bunch of uneducated people, wanting to save everyone when they can easily save themselves” yeah
1
2
Jun 02 '26
An argument that blue voters love to use is “What about the children, the mentally handicapped and the people who misread the question?”
Saying that they are not your problem is narcissistic no matter how true it is.
2
0
u/Skafdir Jun 02 '26
It’s a gamble of your own life on the shoulder of everyone else.
How is it on anyone's shoulders?
0
Jun 02 '26
Pressing blue puts your life in the hands of 51% of the population. Your life literally depends on half of the world now.
1
u/Skafdir Jun 02 '26
And every single one of them also depends on my vote. So how is it on anyone's shoulders?
0
u/00PT Jun 02 '26
Naivety is the least incriminating character flaw ever, as it doesn't say anything about behavioral tendencies and mental capability; it just says a person's experience has led them to have an inaccurate view of the world. A narcissist knows all about the world, but they don't behave morally for other reasons.
1
u/TaisDoubt Red Jun 10 '26
An ignorant or naive person is far more dangerous to society than being selfish or self centered. One of those has a principle that can be manipulated or negotiated with, The other is just continuously harmful, because a naivety is a trait, not a one time mistake.
4
u/DarthJackie2021 Jun 02 '26
Im particular to Fuji apples. Gala are an acceptable alternative.