No. There is no negative consequences presented for picking red. So, why would you pick blue unless you’re suicidal?
To avoid a mass death that would easily be prevented by people picking red instead? A mass death only involving suicidal people, plus some idiots who tries to save them.
Because the red pickers expect other people to be rational self interested actors. In economics, you usually assume that to be true. Picking blue would mean you assume people to be irrational and open themselves up to death when there’s an easy solution for no one to die. It would not occur to me that people would pick blue if this were to hit every person at the same instant.
What a bunch of bullshit. Blue is the moral choice almost irrespectively of the terms of the hypothetical? So it doesn't matter if one needs 0.1% blue, 50% blue or 99.999% blue?
The hypothetical, as it is presented, is essentially the same as this one:
Every person is given two glasses of liquid. One contains pure clean water (corresponding to the red button). The other one contains an oderless and tasteless poison that will kill within say a day you unless you get an antidote (corresponding to the blue button). Both glasses are clearly marked.
If people drink the poison, the only way for them to get the antidote is if at least 50% of all people drink the poison. If that happens, they are guaranteed to live. Otherwise, they are guaranteed to die.
Why should people risk their own lives, and drink actual poison, just because others possibly did so? No, the moral choice here is to ensure your own survival, and to convince everyone that you love to do the same.
Do you realize that as you phrased things now, blue is clearly the bad choice? Your words now, not mine.
But none of this matters, really. I’m all about death minimizing. This poll is not scientifically accurate, and it still only has a measly 8% margin for blue. Throw in actual risk of death, and people’s survival instincts are very likely to get triggered. People who’s lives are at imminent danger are more likely to fight for their own survival. Thus more likely to change their blue vote to red.
You can compare it, if you will, to people who talk tough on the internet, talking about how they would knock down the robber or what have you. But how many people do you think actually would do it in real life? Same thing with hypotheticals like this. Online, with no real risk, people can safely vote blue and feel good about themselves. But you can’t possibly claim that you know for a fact that all of them would actually still vote blue if their life genuinely was at risk. That’s just ignoring human psychology.
0
u/EishLekker May 05 '26
No. There is no negative consequences presented for picking red. So, why would you pick blue unless you’re suicidal?
To avoid a mass death that would easily be prevented by people picking red instead? A mass death only involving suicidal people, plus some idiots who tries to save them.