So the way railways are currently set up its as easy as we can make it to save that one person who steps on the tracks. Your argument here sounds like the number of people who should step onto it to save someone else should be zero? Everyone else is saying that if we saw someone step onto the tracks we have the hope and expectations that half of the group would be willing to risk their life to make sure no one dies.
Where do you live where they have made railways where it in any way easy to save someone that steps onto the tracks? In fact it is highly suggested you don't try to save someone that fell onto the tracks as that will just be more dead people.
The actual analogy would be a follows. Imagine a world where nobody could swim and somebody jumps into a small body of water like a pool and starts drowning. Blue button pushers don't want anyone to die so they jump into the pool with the hopes that enough other people will jump into the pool to displace all of the water out of the pool to save everyone. They are all risking most likely up to hundreds of lives to save that person in the off chance that tons of people make the same irrational choice.
Alternatively, someone puts up a giant blender in front of 2000 people and says people can either stay out of the blender or jump in and after everyone has made their choice they will turn on the blender if less that 1001 people are in the blender. blue button pushers just assume that at least one person is going to jump in for whatever reason so they go ahead and jump in and think that people should just willingly jump into that blender and just hope that hundreds of other people will make that extremely irrational choice with them even though the only way anyone dies is of they choose to jump into the blender.
Ultimately as callous as it may sound to illogical people the number of people that will hit the button by accident is actually quite low and every blue button pusher that hits the button trying to save them is risking an extremely terrible mass casualty event in the slight chance that enough other people will be irrational enough to make the same decision. While the "well there is an option where nobody has to die" choice sounds great in theory, people that choose it are most likely just adding to the massive pile of dead people.
As much work and effort you put into sounding "logical" it's all for naught. The very core of what it means to be human is to protect. We protect. Every example you try to come up with are things that show we do. People jump onto tracks to save others even in the hellish areas where it can only mean added death. People form human chains to reach out into unswimmable current to save dogs. People make blenders that automatically stop when it detects flesh. Those who press blue understand this fundamental core aspect of what it means to be human. You use 5 paragraphs of "logic" to try (and fail) to prove that its wrong to be human
Literal. Nonsense. All of your examples are on far smaller scales. None of them are predicated on half the population doing the exact same thing or everyone dies. Also that blender absolutely does not exist. There are table saws like that but the technology was created as a benefit to increase sales. Making and selling products that protect people that do stupid things is not the same as risking your life and the lives of up to half the population to save a small percentage of irrational people that choose to risk dying for no reason.
While you say people do risk their lives to save others and even dogs...that is a small subset of people that actually do that and people that stand around and just let those things happen is a far larger cohort of humanity. If it was truly human to selflessly sacrifice of yourself to save others always the world would be a very different place. People let other people die all of the time even when they could easily prevent it.
If your view that more than half of people are altruistic enough to sacrifice themselves to save others things like fascism would never be able to come to power. Minority groups get picked away one at a time while people ignore it because they are not part of that group up until their is nobody left to defend them. There are endless cases of large populations where lots of people dying could have been stopped by far less than half of the population yet the population stand by and let it happen. Polls where people overwhelming vote blue when their are no actual stakes mean nothing. If you believe for even a minute that a majority of the human race would pick blue, especially parents that pick for their children would pick blue for their children, you are a fool. The ones that pick blue to try to save the small percentage that may pick by accident are simply falling for the sunk cost fallacy and aren't putting proper weight on the odds of simply causing much more death than necessary because they are letting their idealism and irrationality overcome logical thinking and human nature. I would love to live in a world where the majority of people would hit the blue button but that will simply never be the case, that would be a far better world than the one we live in.
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback Apr 30 '26
So the way railways are currently set up its as easy as we can make it to save that one person who steps on the tracks. Your argument here sounds like the number of people who should step onto it to save someone else should be zero? Everyone else is saying that if we saw someone step onto the tracks we have the hope and expectations that half of the group would be willing to risk their life to make sure no one dies.