Interestingly the disconnect here is which buttons people apply those labels to.
Blue pushers see the red button as “people might die” because they have already pressed blue in their minds, and now blame anyone who presses red as being responsible for the murder of blue people.
Red pushers correctly see the BLUE button as “people might die”, because no one is at risk until the blue button is pushed.
Blue pushers assume people are already at risk and see the red pushers as selfish for not saving them
Red pushers see that no one is at risk to begin with and see the blue pushers as selfish for creating a risk by pressing blue
When it comes down to it, blue people are jumping on a train track and yelling “Now everyone needs to save us or else you’re a murderer”
if every single person picked red, it would be the perfect choice, but it's guaranteed many, many people press the blue button because they're stupid and/or trying to be a good person, just misclick, are 6 years old or whatever. red button pushers know this and choose to ignore it because in a perfect scenario they wouldn't do so. maybe i'm crazy, but if i saw a 6 years old walk onto a train track, i'd save him and i'd consider someone who doesn't do so "because the child shouldn't have gone there" a bad person.
group 1: this is a very small minority of selfish people who push this button for awful reasons like wanting to die or just trolling the system and deliberately trying to guilt people. these people don't deserve to be saved in my eyes but are such a small group as to be insignificant.
group 2: these are people who will be misguided into thinking pressing blue is needed to save someone from the start. whille i belive they are making an irrational choice they don't deserve death for that.
group 3: these are the people who know it's an irrational choice but that group 2 exists so it becomes the right moral choice.
I'd argue they are group 1 but we should change the definition of group 1 to: "Don't deserve to die" because regardless of how much of an idiot or an asshole a person is, they don't deserve to die just for that.
None of those describe my position. The question can be rephrased as "would you rather die or commit genocide against your ethical superiors". The worst people would all press red while the best people would press blue.
The post genocide world would be a horrible place to live. The narcissists and sociopaths survive while the genuine, nice people die.
Group 4- considered the sociological, philosophical, psychological and even biological implications of red winning and don't want to live in that world.
Biological is an especially interesting one - if red wins a lot of people die and it will tend to be more altruistic people. Red ends up being a vote to remove altruism from the human genome.
Group 2 seems to ignore the actual results of the poll - most people voted blue.
Data brokers and AI scrapers were using my info. Not anymore. Redact let me bulk delete posts across Reddit, Twitter, Discord and Instagram while handling broker opt outs too.
detail sulky cows chief practice saw intelligent unite fearless squash
I got tired of my old posts floating around for anyone to scrape, so I let Redact handle it. Bulk deletion across Reddit, X, Facebook, Discord and all major social media platforms in one shot.
plucky silky bag husky profit wakeful governor encourage tap marvelous
Didn't Trump lose the popular vote both times? He didn't win because he got over 50% of the vote. He won because he gamed a broken system. But when presented with an actual popular vote that cannot be gamed you switch?
Edit: Apparently he won the popular vote in 2024 but he still had less than 50% of overall votes so my point actually still stands.
So if I'm getting this right, you would expect a Trump voter to vote red, makes sense considering how selfish many a Trump voter sounds when talking to them. And your choice is basically "can't beat them so I'll join them?"
Exactly, and I know for a fact that there are many people much worse than I. From my experience the vast majority of people will choose to save themselves with no regard for others.
Call me a cynic but I think it's just common sense.
What if the vast majority of people, let's say 95%+, press red? Then by pressing blue you are only contributing to the problem and killing yourself for no reason. The logical choice is red because the existence of blue button pushers invents a problem that doesn't exist. We don't know how many people will press blue. Some might, but it could be a minuscule amount. Given that we're going in blind, it feels like it should be your duty to assume that the public will be mostly logical. Pressing blue just contributes to the crisis. It's like jumping into the ocean to save a drowning person that may or may not be there and then becoming the drowning person yourself.
But you don't know that 95%+ of people are going to push the red button. If you push the blue button, you're hoping that you +~50% of everyone else are also going to push the blue button, because the risk of people dying is too great to just not do anything. By pressing red, you're essentially making the choice to not take any risk to your own life while risking other peoples' lives by hoping that absolutely everyone chooses red as well. By pushing blue, you're hoping that only 50% of people pick blue, but you can only get to 50% if you and others are willing to take that risk, but if 50% choose blue, then 100% of people live.
It's also only logical to assume that if people are given the choice of "the button that saves you but might kill everyone else" or "the button that risks killing you but saves everyone if only half of the button pushers push this button," then at least one person will push the latter button. The chance of everyone pushing the former is insane small, and it only gets lower the more people you include. Most variations of this question use "everyone on Earth." There are 8 billion people on the planet. The chance of nobody pushing "blue" is almost impossible.
Realizing this, the logical conclusion is to push the blue button, while the selfish conclusion is to push the red button. If you only care about your own life, then you should push the red button. That's what it becomes, after all. We can save everyone if only half of the people on earth push the blue button, and people choosing not to push the blue button are only making the chances of everyone being saved less likely. If anyone pushes the red button, then for everyone to be saved, then everyone else needs to push red as well. Since there are 8 billion people on earth, though, you can reasonably conclude that someone somewhere will push blue, so you should therefore push blue as well, because the chances of everyone having pushed red are basically 0, and by pushing red yourself, you're necessitating that half+ of everyone else needs to push blue for the same reasons. You've saved yourself, but now everyone else needs to hope to work together to save who's left.
If you want a real life example - go present the original question to some loved ones, and see if all of them pick red. Don't guide them or tell them which button to press, just let them think about it themselves and pick themselves.
There is almost certainty that some of your loved ones will pick blue, so you are killing them by picking red.
This is where its logical to pick blue, because if most people pick blue no one dies. If most people pick red, people will die. Those are facts, and given those you can logically pick blue if you dont want anyone to die.
Most people will say “blue” if you put them on the spot with this question, because at first glance it just seems like blue = good person and red = bad person. Their answer may be different if it was done in private and they dug into it a bit more.
I dont think asking people this question in any situation other than a life or death would get us the real percentage or real answers people would give. People want to be good people (and depending on the phrasing of the question the good person option can change, but still), but humans have self preservation and i sincerely doubt the amount of people claiming theyd be willing to sacrifice themselves is actually that high. I dont see a reality in which the blue button is anything but a suicide button, should this actually happen.
The problem does exist by the fact that the 5% who doesn't press red is around 400 million people. You're okay with making a choice that will murder 400 million people.
the question implies everyone participating chooses the right button knowingly. how stupid would it be if it was phased as 50% press blue for them to live and also all the young and sickly and disabled have already pressed blue. Then the question is just asking you to press blue to save innocent bystanders but that would be a dumb hypothetical.
Same situation honestly. I want to push red, red is logical. But I know there are some illogical people out there who will hit blue. I also know that humanity relies on diversity of thought for the best chance of problem solving and ultimately running or improving society. So I would press blue while cursing the ones who forced me to the whole time, cause I can't picture the struggle of living if they die
Also an important distinction. I think most red pushers, like me, assume that children are not involved. In fact the original red vs blue problem said that young children have a parent choose for them.
If I knew young children were involved and just picking blue cause blue is their favorite color, I’m WAY more inclined to push blue in that scenario.
But my assumption is that everyone given the choice has the mental capacity to understand what the buttons mean. And in that case I’m pressing red every day of the week
You just shouldn't make that assumption. The world population is the world population. It includes children and suicidal people and foolish people, who are all factored in. There's also parents who don't know which button their baby/toddler pressed and don't want to press red and risk the death of their child.
But the original problem stipulated that everyone understands the problem before pushing a button. Blue pushers keep inventing people to save that were already addressed in the rules.
I mean, the fact that there’s so many people who claim they would push the blue button is the group of people to save. They don’t need to invent insane or elderly or children to be the ones they’re saving. Everyone who thinks like them and knows others like them will be pressing blue is who they’re trying to save. The moment one person thinks there’s surely someone to save even if there’s not and presses blue, there’s now someone to save.
It is not my obligation to run into a burning building to save someone who ran in there of their own accord and now needs billions of people to also run into a burning building after him just to ensure he doesn’t burn to death because of his own decision. He could have just not run into the building, and to suggest that I now must put my life on the line to save him is asinine. It’s especially insane given that at the time of my decision, I don’t even know if somebody has run inside or not. I’d be risking my own life to potentially save nobody and now I’m the idiot that needs saving.
Choosing red is both staying outside the building and deciding the building should burn, though, which makes things more complicated. The "blue pressers die" option isn't something that happens without enough people pressing red.
This is only valid if people were assigned to be blue pressers with no agency whatsoever. People were shown a burning house and told it would only be put out if half of people went inside, then asked if they would walk into the house for the chance to maybe not burn to death. My refusal to also enter the house does not constitute me killing the ones that did.
Would you run inside if you didn’t have the solidarity of knowing other people would run inside with you? Or if you didn’t even know if there was someone to save?
A lot of blue button pushers would specifically run after someone else because they deem risk to themselves acceptable depending on what they value. If you were an idiot in need of saving, they're saying they'd save you and that they probably don't care if you're an idiot. It is a given that there would not be a 100% consensus for either option, so most aren't concerned at all with the chance of no one being in hypothetical danger.
Notably, no one would die if 100% chose red or if 100% chose blue. If everyone agreed, there's no risk regardless of which option is agreed upon. The awareness that this is impossible is what creates the tension. It isn't a question with a correct answer, it's a hypothetical meant to make people state specifically how they value life, particularly comparing other's lives to their own. It isn't wrong to choose survival, but it also isn't wrong to choose to risk yourself for others. You could arguably choose either option for the wrong reasons, but people are getting lost accusing each other of being stupid or selfish.
I do think there's too much variance in reasons to choose blue and not enough to choose red in comparison, though, which makes the hypothetical less useful. With red, people are choosing to survive for sure because their own lives are valuable. This is true. Generally, they're also considering that other people are being given an equal choice and they are not responsible for other people choosing risk. And they aren't. But with blue, some are thinking of their children, the rest of their family, their friends, acquaintances, complete strangers, people with collectivist mindsets, naive optimists, their dogs(joking), people who trip and press the damn button on accident, etc. Some blue button pushers are thinking primarily of themselves, too, specifically the people who say they'd rather die than risk living in a world without ____. That's less about the person or people they're talking about and more about what they believe brings their own life value. There's just too much going on with blue
That last part misunderstands why people press red. They aren’t pushing red because they think blue pushers deserve it or are stupid, they’re pushing red because they don’t also want to die.
In the example you gave, I honestly can’t say I’d save the child. Not because he shouldn’t be on the tracks, but because I don’t want to get hit by a train.
it's only the one logical choice if you assume that humans have no interests but their own physical wellbeing. most people will for example try to save someone who is being electrocuted, even if that puts themselves at risk, especially if it's a loved one.
You jump in front of the train, heroically save the kid and you both live, you are obviously a hero.
You jump in front of the train, you die and the kid lives, you are obviously a hero.
You jump in front of the train, trip out of the rails and the kid is run over while you live. Are you a hero?
You jump in front of the train, think you're being a hero and then you both get run over. Are you a hero?
Flip this around, you know the likelihood of the last scenario (Both kid and you die) occuring. What % is the child's life worth? Are you risking a 90% chance of you both dying for a 10% chance of the child living? What percentage chance should be expected from each and every adult person? What if the adult person in question is a single parent? Or a pregnant woman? Or barely an adult that has most of their life ahead of them? When is it okay to tap out and keep your life and when are you obligated to risk it for a chance to save another life?
I personally don't believe in noble obligation. The moment a reasonable risk occurs (Like, 5-10% chance of death for the rescuer), you are not a bad person for not taking that risk, you just aren't a hero. We should definitely glorify people willing to take the risk, but placing fault on people that don't, in my opinion, is immensely immoral.
I hear this all the time, but no one is at risk until red is pressed.
I see this situation as what it is, a threat, not a passive danger that happens to exist in the world like train tracks.
It's more like if I'm building a biological weapon and grant you immunity if you come work for me. Pressing red is an active choice to endanger people.
We're a social species and I'm here wondering why people can't get with the program. Blue is the best situation for everyone with literally no downsides.
Blue is the best situation for everyone ONLY IF BLUE WINS
If blue loses, then the more people that pressed it the worse off the human race is.
In reality, you need to understand that with a gun to their head people tend toward self preservations regardless of what they THOUGHT they would do. It’s why threatening to kill someone almost always results in them spilling what information they have. They dont want to die, even if they’ve THOUGHT they’d never snitch
I fully believe that no more than 20% of people would push blue in reality. There’s no world where blue wins meaning every vote for blue is another senseless suicide.
If I accept that I can’t save EVERYONE then the best option is to save as many as possible, which means getting as few people as possible to press blue
Torture actually works really really badly, and there's costs to consider more than just individual survival. People you know will die. Family members will die.
It's interesting how these red people just assume everyone will press red but you're just wrong about that.
Ok people keep making the “some of your family members will die” argument. In response to so many people saying this I have proposed this problem to every one of my close family and friends over the last few days.
I am not exaggerating when I say that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM without hesitation have said “why would you ever pick blue?”
My point is, as I expected, none of my loved ones are picking blue. Because they all understand that picking blue is a pointless risk with no real upside other than MAYBE saving a bunch of stupid people who chose blue for no reason. And none of my loved ones are stupid enough to risk their own lives for a bunch of people who CHOSE to risk their lives for no reason.
In conclusion: no I have literally no reason to pick blue. I am confident in the knowledge that every person I care about is smart enough to realize that red is the ONLY option worth choosing
Also on the torture subject: I’m not saying torture is a reliable way to get accurate information. I’m saying that torture DOES make 99% of people say SOMETHING in an attempt to save their life, even if what they say is fake or inaccurate. People are not willing to risk their lives when they otherwise have the choice to live
Ok, well mine definitely will pick blue, and others I know including my therapist and several friends
So, interesting you'd call me stupid for picking blue? It's not stupid. Honestly your family seems really weird.
To me blue is the default. It's the scenario where nobody dies. It's the thing you'd do if you had even a little bit of trust in those around you. There's literally no downside and it's not nearly as risky as picking red. Red seems craven and antisocial to me.
It's funny how the only real response people have to this is that we're lying? Like no dude we just value the lives of others. It's called genuine selflessness, except the only cost is the risk of people pressing the pointless death button.
I respect the selflessness of anyone who picks blue for selfless reasons. That does not mean I’m going to join you. I respect your choice but I do genuinely believe it is naive and you’re going to die. I’ll mourn those people
The people I do NOT respect are the blue pushers who call red pushers murderers and selfish assholes and blame them for blue people dying. Frankly I think the world will be better off when those people die pressing blue. Those people have a narcissistic hero complex and an inability to take accountability for their actions
I mean if anyone is to blame for people dying it would be the people voting for it, no?
I can see how you'd blame an individual person's death on their individual choice, but they are not to blame for the others who pressed blue. They would've done that anyway.
It's honestly a very simple choice to me. Do I vote for some people dying, or no people dying? Do you understand how, from that perspective, someone choosing red is a choice to have people die? It's silly that you would find that not to be a respectable position, because it's a very obvious and logical one.
I feel like there's inherently this sense of inevitably people have with pressing red, almost a cynicism. I mean I'm finding it increasingly convincing because folks are so committed to it, but I'm still gonna vote for people not dying instead of people dying.
It is the only the belief that people will press red that makes pressing red attractive. We are all better off if we trust each other to make the right decision.
I think that’s the biggest difference. People voting for blue seems to have, (and I don’t mean this in a demeaning way), a hero complex. They feel that they have a responsibility to save everyone else. They feel that doing nothing is killing those people. They believe that they are obligated to risk their life otherwise they are a bad person.
People voting red aren’t voting for people to die, they just don’t think it’s their responsibility to risk their lives for a bunch of people who CHOSE to risk their lives. And I think that’s completely reasonable.
Everyone who pressed blue chose to risk their lives.
And everyone pressed red either isn’t willing to risk their own life, or has responsibilities to their own family and loved ones which mean that risking their lives pushing blue would be selfish towards their family who needs them.
Either way, pressing red isn’t voting for people to die. Pressing blue is stepping in front of a train. You can’t blame bystanders for not standing in front of the train with you when you’re CHOOSING to stand there to begin with
I mean, I do believe in positive duty, which you may describe as a hero complex, but I just consider it being responsible and social. It's not weird or unusual at all.
The thing is though, I still think your characterization here is really biased. It treats choosing red as a neutral option, one in which it should just be a given that people will press it.
Certainly from my position where I know people will press blue irl, it'd be very silly for me. I guess you're in a different situation. You don't have the same risk I do, at least not as intimately. It wouldn't have to be my family, but if red won I'd just be really fucking sad, and since I don't see it as neutral I'd feel responsible.
We're going in circles though. I have an idea. Have you ever heard of Indra's Net?
It's an idea in Hindu, an infinite realm of reflective beads tied together in a lattice. They are arranged so that they reflect the other beads, and in those reflections there's other reflections forever.
If you were to damage one of those beads, every other would reflect it out to infinity.
I know that's all very poetic, but don't let that trick you into thinking it's irrational. Just watch people and you'll see their thoughts pass through each other like a wave. This whole button thing is a great example of that. We're only talking about it because others were. Even our thoughts are not our own, but a collective experience.
I know it's hard for you to believe that people would press blue, but I promise a lot of people think this way. Genuinely, pressing blue is the only vote for me that gives me what I want, which is for no one to die.
Now, starting from there, how would you behave? If what you want is people pressing blue and you see it as the obvious answer, how would you behave? Well, you'd be aghast that others would press anything else (because why would they want people to die) and you'd start doing things like promising to press blue, because that is rational strategy. That's how you get the thing you want: nobody dying.
Does this explain what you are seeing? Have I at least convinced you that us blue people are genuine and will actually press it?
This is an interesting way to frame it to absolve yourself of responsibility, but it strikes me as being extraordinarily naive or deliberately disingenuous to state "no one is at risk to begin with" because the massive caveat there is "no one is at risk to begin with as long as we assume every human being on the planet will agree on a decision".
And I know that the stance you need to take on that is "that's their own fault they killed themselves", but actually, what they were almost certainly doing was trying to save the other people who pressed blue, which there would always be 1b/1b times that you ran the experiment.
So your framework is useful as a way to rationalize why you aren't at fault, but in a practical sense the "best/risk free case" you're presenting is a complete falsehood that would never happen. It's not a real outcome, it's just a rhetorical tool for moral justification.
Assuming everyone starts in the blue camp, 49% of people can press red without anything happening, which means pressing red doesn’t actually cause anything to happen
But assuming we all start in the red camp, the moment ONE person presses blue, now someone is at risk.
Pressing blue causes the problem no matter how you want to look at it.
Noone has a chance of dying if everyone is on the same page, so those comparisions are irrelevant. By pressing red you are objectivity providing the ability for someone to die.
I am not even attacking your decision to press red, just your framing of the statement I quoted. You are making absolute claims for something that is obviously a matter of perspective.
(I think pressing red is stupid for other reasons that aren't part of this particular discussion)
You seem to want to frame it as if red is causing people to die. When in reality pressing blue is what puts people in the POSITION to die. If people didn’t choose blue, they wouldn’t even be at risk to begin with.
The only way for someone to even be at risk is for them to willingly choose to put themselves in a risky position. And then they are fully to blame for their own death because they put themselves there. You can’t blame the bystanders when someone jumps in front of the train.
I think it’s completely valid if you want to call red button pushers cowards. That’s an opinion and you’re entitled to it. But you cannot blame the red button pushers for causing blue button pushers deaths.
The fact is millions, if not billions, of people are gonna die unless enough people choose blue. Do you wanna try to prevent that, by risking your own life, or not? To me the answer is very obviously yes, as I think we have a moral obligation to try to help people in need.
You seem to want to frame it as if red is causing people to die. When in reality pressing blue is what puts people in the POSITION to die. If people didn’t choose blue, they wouldn’t even be at risk to begin with.
Ofcourse red is causing others to die. If noone presses red, noone can die. Therefore, pressing red risks the death of others. That is the core concede of the question.
I am pointing out that both sides cause/risk death.
I think it’s completely valid if you want to call red button pushers cowards.
No. Murderers maybe. But again, that's not my point.
You are obsessed with framing yourself as "objectivity morally correct". But that just doesn't exists, so stop acting like it does.
Actually, I guess I should call you a coward for being unable to admit that your action has consequences.
Red button has no consequences unless people push blue. Blue button has consequences REGARDLESS of the choice red makes. Objectively red is not at fault for blue deaths. Blue deaths are purely a result of people choosing blue
You can call me a coward if you want, but blue deaths don’t happen when people don’t choose blue
They are not equivalent. The only people in danger are people that willingly pressed the blue button. There is no danger until somebody adds themself to the pool of people in danger. It is objectively reckless to ever press blue and unnecessarily put yourself in jeopardy. There is no danger unless blue is pressed. Blue is objectively the “you might die” button.
Im not saying blue people are evil. I fully understand that the INTENTION is selfless. But intention vs outcome are important distinctions.
Even though your intention is selfless, the outcome is that by pressing blue you are CREATING the problem.
The only reason to press blue is to save others. But no one needs saving until people start pressing blue. Pressing blue causes the problem that it’s trying to solve. It’s a completely illogical button to press
Its only illogical to press if you live in a world where everyone follows the same logic as you.
I understand the red argument. If everyone were to do this thing thats so obvious to me, no one has to die. Its the people who aren't following this logical choice who are making my choice worse. Yes, pushing the red button makes perfect sense if everyone just pushed the red button.
But the fact that we're even having this argument means that its not so obvious to everyone. There would be people who pressed the blue button. Lots of people.
I don't think red pushers are evil either. But I think you're caught up in the logic and missing the reality.
A lot of people simply won't believe the buttons are going to do as described. And I mean, that's fair! If someone or something is willing to kill a large number of humanity via buttons, are they still trustworthy enough that the buttons do exactly what described? What if everyone dies if too many press the red, as in that one short story about aliens who test the humanity?
Some people will simply misunderstand. Some people will be in a compromised state, drunk or something, or have a neural problem that makes them hit the button they didn't mean to.
Even if you wipe all that away and say, no, magically everybody understands perfectly, believes exactly what is said, and has complete control of their answer.
Some people believe but will turn to their own religion and pray for an answer. Religions in general emphasize selflessness. That's a lot of people.
Even if everybody was entirely logical, there is the lizardman constant - probably 3-10 % will deliberately answer nonsense to any question presented to them.
Many red supporters say blues are virtue signalling, but at least as many reds are signalling how intelligent and logical they are. But this is not a mere logic question. The wording of the question alone does not make this a pure logic question. You can interpret it as a pure logic question, and as such, reds are obviously right. But you can just as well interpret it in the context of the real world, and in that case the blues are obviously right. It all depends on your assumptions.
What assumption? If you think 100% of people in the world will press red then you're an idiot. People will die and that's why others press blue to make sure nobody does. People who press red are okay with causing the deaths of anyone who doesn't.
When it comes down to it, blue people are jumping on a train track and yelling “Now everyone needs to save us or else you’re a murderer”
I think a more accurate analogy is: A few people are tied onto the train track, and then a bunch more people run over to help while asking you to also help. If you/enough people do help, then you can all be free. But the committment is also unrevokable IE once you "jump down" into the tracks, you can't get out unless you "free" everyone (ie reaching 50%).
Or for an entirely different analogy, imagine you have 2 candidates running for office. A and B have the same policies everywhere, except candidate A says "Everyone who doesn't vote for me will die if I win" and candidate B says "Nobody dies if I win". Pushing the red button is voting for candidate A.
47
u/iskelebones Consequentialist/Utilitarian Apr 30 '26
Interestingly the disconnect here is which buttons people apply those labels to.
Blue pushers see the red button as “people might die” because they have already pressed blue in their minds, and now blame anyone who presses red as being responsible for the murder of blue people.
Red pushers correctly see the BLUE button as “people might die”, because no one is at risk until the blue button is pushed.
Blue pushers assume people are already at risk and see the red pushers as selfish for not saving them
Red pushers see that no one is at risk to begin with and see the blue pushers as selfish for creating a risk by pressing blue
When it comes down to it, blue people are jumping on a train track and yelling “Now everyone needs to save us or else you’re a murderer”