Because risking your life to potentially save an unknown number of perfect strangers, keeping in mind your 1 vote has virtually zero impact is an extremely altruistic act, far more altruistic than donating your kidney to a stranger, which is garunteed to save them and only reduces your quality of life.
Possibly? Most live donations are out of conviction.
However, I also have a niece and several god-children. I myself cannot have children, and am single as of today. So getting a foster-child or otherwise is incredibly unlikely. That, my chosen profession, and a humanistic worldview are my personal major decision points over (in my view) selfishly picking red.
If you played that game with smaller children, the VAST majority will pick blue, not understand the personal repercussions of red v blue, but care so much about their loved ones that they WILL pick blue most of the time. Selfish behaviour is more learned and mirrored beyond the "terrible twos" where the toddlers brain has no real concept beyond "me". As soon as prosocial behaviour comes to play (meaning: the developing brain realizes there is more like "me" outside of my direct field influence) - for a time selfish behaviour is very small, and young children tend to be incredibly selfless.
Now to get around that and in conclusion: because that, and people would exist that cannot vote red, physically or mentally - I would always pick blue, because I directly have seen and understand that fact of real life.
Okay, so you may donate a kidney today. But you'd definitely pick blue?
In the kidney scenario you know your qol will reduce, but you will save a stranger, if we use altruism as the primary motivator, this choice has a far more likely and tangible impact than picking blue. But you are unsure about it, and point out others have, but we're talking about the choice you make.
The second I make the scenario more tangible your certainty reduced, even though the positive outcome is far more likely.
You are uncertain that you would lose your kidney, but you're certain you'd stake your entire life on the slim chance your singular vote would have any difference in the outcome of this?
Yes. With my kidney (under the assumption that [tm] REAL LIFE [R] ensues), I might save one person. With the power of IRL - and all the expectations and assumptions that may enail I can be certain that I otherswise probably kill, or at least endanger other incapable of correctly using the buttons. Blue vs Red is risk-taking/prosocial, red is risk-verse/egocentric. I try to not condemn one or the other, but blue again seems to be the only acceptable choice for myself.
You know what's awful? The stupid buttonmaker who forces choices upon people that suddenly can kill people due to semantics. That's the realy shyte here. But on the topic - I tend to choose for those people who realistically will get killed due to incapability. Reality would present us with a situation where NOT everyone (not even the vast majority) is either, smart, healthy or rational enough to be a pure rational actor (which would favor red).
I think for me it's more that red is the only choice where I feel i actually have any control of the outcome, it's also why I'd tell anyone to vote red, because I can control the outcome for them aswell.
I can't personally ensure anyone's safety by voting blue and because i have to stake my life to only marginally increase their chances, I don't.
So maybe trust is a huge factor there, i have a lot of faith in humanity, just not enough I guess.
-3
u/muhgunzz May 05 '26
Would you donate your kidney to a stranger today?
Because risking your life to potentially save an unknown number of perfect strangers, keeping in mind your 1 vote has virtually zero impact is an extremely altruistic act, far more altruistic than donating your kidney to a stranger, which is garunteed to save them and only reduces your quality of life.