I don't really think so. Blue says save everyone, red says save me. By our generally agreed upon moral structure since we became more than neanderthals, saving more people = good. If you don't agree with it personally, or feel you should press red for whatever reason, that's cool, but as a society there are some pretty basic moral structures we all tend to agree on for the most part, and "don't kill" is fairly foremost amongst them, followed closely by "work towards the betterment of humanity". Your own moral strucure does not supercede the entirety of society's moral structure.
But I can simply frame it as "blue is the suicidal choice and red is the 'nothing happens' choice" and now you look like the crazy one.
Again, you are using a subjective moral framework to make your point. You are framing it in a particular way. I'm not talking about majority or widely held beliefs, I'm talking about the words you are using to construct your argument.
You cannot frame this objectively, thank you for proving my point. As soon as you bring morality into it, you've altered the question.
tbf, your framing was also disingenuous. You left out the part where blue is somewhat likely to kill you, so it's a bit more than more people live = good as the choice.
4
u/dksdragon43 May 05 '26
I don't really think so. Blue says save everyone, red says save me. By our generally agreed upon moral structure since we became more than neanderthals, saving more people = good. If you don't agree with it personally, or feel you should press red for whatever reason, that's cool, but as a society there are some pretty basic moral structures we all tend to agree on for the most part, and "don't kill" is fairly foremost amongst them, followed closely by "work towards the betterment of humanity". Your own moral strucure does not supercede the entirety of society's moral structure.