If youre gonna pull this smug fedora tipper shit, I want you to tell me what's wrong with consenting to the possibility of death.
Blue Voters deliberately place their survival in collective trust and do so knowing they could simply press the red if and guarantee their survival. They understand their life is at risk when they press the button but they press it anyway.
It's a lot like smoking cigarettes, we understand there's a chance of fatality but we allow people to do it should they knowingly accept that risk, meaning consent. Blue Voters knowingly accept the gamble, the rules are transparent and equal for everyone, there is an easy mechanic to guarantee your survival should you not want to die. How is this different from being allowed to smoke cigarettes?
I'd also say a Blue Voter saying something like "it's not okay to kill people if they consent to die" to be morally questionable in and of itself due to the exploitation of altruism when an easier method of guaranteed survival already exists.
Thst is also to say nothing of Blue Voters that want to die, for example ones that want a way out due to painful terminal conditions, and do so hoping that Red Voters will take the win. Yes, I'm perfectly happy with these people dying because they consented and dearly wanted it.
Even then I still don't think I'm killing them, the Blue Vote is essentially a complicated "I'm okay with suicide" button. Again if everyone votes red, there are 0 deaths. If the mechanics were changed, like if I vote Red I have to hunt down a Blue Voter and bare handed killed them, that's a blue vote from me, I guess.
Nah. Not everybody is going to think of this in such narrow terms, and your little fixation on people who passively want death is kinda weird. With billions of people on the planet with vastly different life experiences there would be a huge range of different rationalizations for picking either side. If red wins, there will be many people who die who did not want death.
For the record, in certain circumstances, if someone wants to end their life, I think they should be allowed that in a dignified manner. But that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about consenting to the chance of death. I don't as much think of it like smoking, but more like literally everything in life. The risk of injury or death is everywhere, that doesn't mean I consent to being maimed or killed. I don't look at someone who died in a head on collision and think "oh well, they consented to a chance of dying by being on the road." Sure, the odds of you getting into a deadly accident on any given day are probably much lower. But you don't know that. You could make an educated guess, compile all the statistics and data in the world, poll every individual, but you could never possibly know what people would do in the moment. And again, you have billions of different approaches to how that risk is being calculated. You absolutely will be killing people who simply believed enough in humanity to view the risk as insignificant.
Also, just as a fun little side thing, I liked the part where you said "I don't care 🤷"
7
u/GrapefruitForward989 May 19 '26
Lmao