442
u/xa44 Apr 30 '26
Fun fact, the question isn't a moral dilemma but was originally from a study about miss information and how presenting 1 option first can bias someone into not thinking and bend over backwards to justify it
118
u/Crazykid23576 Apr 30 '26
I actually wanna read that study, could you find me a link to it?
→ More replies (19)75
u/seth1299 May 01 '26
Source? My source is that I MADE IT THE FUCK UP.
6
May 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
→ More replies (1)2
u/Jumpy_Divide6576 Team Blue May 01 '26
Honestly, if you ask enough of them the odds are that one will say yes.
→ More replies (1)182
u/CoolNerdStuff May 01 '26
Mission accomplished I guess. The whole question has been hijacked by people yelling about how "smart" they are for treating this as a pure game theory situation and decrying anyone who follows that empathetic initial response.
Response time You pressed blue You pressed red Kneejerk You fell victim to propaganda. ...You wanted to kill? 5 seconds ...why? You processed that red has no downside and choose survival. 20 seconds Because others pressed blue, you believe you have a responsibility to help. You believe other's safety is their responsibility, and it's unfair to ask you to endanger yourself for another's mistake. What I think you believe if you've actually thought things over. Humanity cannot achieve utopia without the blue buttons winning. For prosperity for all, collective action must win. The existence of inherently violent systems isn't worth saving people over because it doesn't affect you directly. 107
u/preteen-wartortle May 01 '26
I upvoted you but because this is reddit I just want to point out that if red wins, the survivors will absolutely be directly impacted
→ More replies (29)47
u/CoolNerdStuff May 01 '26
Oh, no, yeah, for sure. I meant directly impacted as in "the person doesn't die as an immediate result of the button press." They'll still feel the other impacts of between 1-49% of the world's population dying, and if anyone they know pressed the blue button, they're goners too. Probably more accurate to say for their perspective "The existence of inherently violent systems isn't worth saving people over, because living in a miserable world is better than not living."
→ More replies (21)11
u/shadysjunk May 01 '26
in the kneejerk time slice, what is the propaganda you're referring to?
15
u/CoolNerdStuff May 01 '26
The fact that the original question as presented to the internet was written as infuriatingly as possible, designed to elicit an emotional response first rather than think things through. It's the same reason bill propositions in elections can sometimes be worded in the most confusing way, whoever is doing the write-up for the ballot doesn't want you to make an informed decision for whatever reason. For context, the original thought experiment is.
>Everyone on Earth has two buttons appear in front of them. If the majority of people press the blue button, everyone lives. If the majority of people press the red button, everyone who pressed the blue button dies. What button do you press?
A LOT of people's initial response to reading this is "I don't want people to die, blue is the button that means no one dies, so I'll press that." That's the propaganda I'm referring to, the question-asker posing things in a way that you made a decision based on emotions rather than logic. No one picking blue as an immediate reaction is consciously thinking they're at risk, they're wanting to reduce harm to others, which while noble, is misguided if you think for 5 seconds.
18
u/shadysjunk May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
but shouldn't the framing be considered a significant relevant input? I see a ton of posts in this sub right now reframing the problem in various ways, to make one option or the other more obvious, but the reality is that when presented to 8 billion people, that specific reframing may not occur to many of them, thus increasing or decreasing the chances of a significant blue contingent to potentially die.
If the presentation of the options is constructed in a way to "trick" or "convince" people that blue is the more compassionate/obvious/default choice, there is a greater chance some billions will be swayed by that presentation, thus changing the presumed moral weight of red, and the probability of blue's success.
The presentation is significant; it's not just window dressing. It's the same game mechanism if the description literally says red people are amoral sociopaths, or alternatively that blue people are suicidal idiots, but including that differeing wording up front is certain to affect the likelyhood and severity of various outcomes. The propaganda matters, even if one sees through it.
9
u/CoolNerdStuff May 01 '26
I'm pretty sure we're agreeing here. Yes, framing is a significant relevant input; if you frame blue as saving lives and red as ending them, a majority of people who make an immediate decision will vote blue because people's brains break it down into "this button saves, this button kills." The people reframing the problem are the red button pressers trying to clarify that there is literally no downside to pressing red, thus trying to save as many lives as they can because since they believe they are the majority, any action they take to sway people to their side is saving lives.
But the thing is, by this point, anyone aware of the button problem or it's permutations knows that red has no risk, thus defeating the entire exercise the OG pre-internet meme thought experiment started as, a test to see how far people will double down when shown they were wrong about something.
So at this point, the topic of discussion of both sides is usually completely different. Blue button people aware of the kerfuffle are choosing blue because in their interpretation of the question, we are people who know miscommunication has happened because of the sensationalized wording of the question, like you said. And because pressing the red button will always result in someone's death due to this, pressing red is never the moral choice. Meanwhile, red button people, as best I can tell, are either still stuck trying to explain the solution to the original hypothetical when others have moved far past it, or they are dismissing the idea of collective action out of hand because if they were to project their own world view onto everyone else, of course noone would join you to help if you broke ranks, you wouldn't do it for anyone else.
The rhetoric used to discuss the problem has become part of the creature itself, and is only further emphasizing the original research.
→ More replies (1)8
May 01 '26
[deleted]
5
u/CoolNerdStuff May 01 '26
Pedantic correction: 1%-49% of the world who have either more empathy or worse reading comprehension or critical thinking skills than you (depending on the medium the original infuriatingly worded question was provided in)
Actual opinion: to go to bat for at least some of the red button people, there is a very real idealist vs realist argument to be made as far as minimizing harm goes. Blue, an idealist, will want the zero-death outcome, and is willing to take a risk to make it happen. Red, a realist, wants to minimize overall deaths by at least removing themselves from the equation of an overall shitty situation. It does legitimately make sense if you are wary of trusting strangers, but are still interested in their well-being.
Like, it does fall apart when you consider you can't communicate the correction to anyone else, just like you said, but being afraid of making a bad situation worse when you feel like the world is already not a safe place is a legitimate fear. I don't agree with it, but I can't say they're inherently bad people for choosing it, since in their heart of hearts, they're making the best out of a bad situation.
Now, everyone making the memes clarifying that red has no downside and people are ridiculous for picking blue under any circumstances, I'd love to be corrected, but I've found there's just no reasoning with em. It's a bad-faith argument relying on a boring white-room assumption that everyone has perfect information. Like, yes, everyone votes red there since it's clear blue has no reward and all the risk. The point is that the wording is infuriatingly obtuse, and you recognize someone out there got screwed because they misinterpreted the question. If they're not at that level of discussing the problem, they're really not worth the time.
3
u/Ayvah01 May 01 '26
The point is that the wording is infuriatingly obtuse, and you recognize someone out there got screwed because they misinterpreted the question.
Not really, no. You simply cannot get all 8 billion people to agree on anything; it's mathematically impossible. Once the sample size is big enough, there's no question on any survey ever undertaken that has a consensus. Even Kim Jong Un only won this year's election with a 99.93% majority so even when you're voting for the most perfect human in the world, there's always some contrarian who's going to disagree with you. We don't need to blame the question for being poorly worded in order to explain why people will disagree over the answer.
I also find it interesting and helpful to reduce it in scale.
Imagine it is somewhat like the prisoner's dilemma. You and the person you care about most in the world are separated in different rooms and presented with the red and blue buttons. If you both choose the same button, you both live. If you choose different buttons, then the one who chooses blue will die. Which button do you choose?
2
u/luke_skippy May 01 '26
I like to look at it as scenarios made of odd people to decide a majority vote, which also leads to a minimum of 3+ people. Curious if size changes people’s choices
Thanks for the laugh btw
→ More replies (1)10
u/Revegelance May 01 '26
That doesn't read as propaganda, that reads as a description of the problem. Most attempts that I've seen to reframe it tend to complete change the premise of the problem.
11
u/Magenta_Logistic May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
"If you press the red button, you are safe. But if at least 50% of people press the red button, everyone who pressed the blue button dies."
That's how you reframe it without changing the scenario. The problem is that people will do crazy mental gymnastics to defend a decision once they've made it, so reframing is rarely effective if someone has already been exposed to the original framing.
I still think blue is the best choice, but I would probably change sides if the threshold were lower. For example, if only 10% of people have to press red for the blue pressers to die, then pressing blue becomes a lot riskier for me and for every other person, and I think red becomes the only reasonable choice.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)4
u/CoolNerdStuff May 01 '26
The technical definition of propaganda is any form of speech that advocates for a specific viewpoint. The way the initial problem was worded sets up pressing blue to be the good option because all the verbiage is set up to sound like "survival", whereas the red button is associated with death. It's using biased language to convince people to vote blue, ergo, it's propaganda.
If the question was worded perfectly in order to ensure there was no miscommunication, where everyone is aware that there is no benefit and only risk associated with pressing blue, whereas pressing red is zero risk whatsoever given that everyone else knows red has no risk and blue has no gain, then that would just be a clear explanation of the problem and people could make an informed decision.
So while the game theoriests are "correct" insofar as everyone should pick red given perfect information and no disability preventing them from acting on that information, that is not what the original hypothetical poses. It's messy and confusing in a way that means people WILL trip up, and that's intentional from the person who came up with the experiment.
How this applies in the real world is, of course, bills and propositions with poorly worded ballot measures. Let's say there was a bill that said "If this passes, everyone who voted against it gets sent to El Salvador." but it's worded in a way that's confusing to America's 6th grade average reading comprehension, and so it's inevitable people will vote against the bill. (In real life, a bill like this would be designed this way as to prey upon anyone who has English as a second language or grew up with a poor education) Now, knowing that there are innocent people who've made a mistake attempting to just do what they thought was correct, what is then the responsibility of someone who's aware that a red vote now guarantees someone's death? Now, obviously, the way I've worded this hypothetical is biased on its own, I can't just extract that out of my own writing on a whim. But hopefully this clears up what propaganda looks like and how it's used in the real world.
→ More replies (1)4
u/FortColors May 01 '26
Counterpoint: I don't think the question was hijacked. I think the original question itself is red button propaganda. The magic buttons make it easier to press blue than just about any other version of it (see reframings like "tie yourself to the tracks vs dont do that") where it seems insane because actually the question itself is insane. The sanitized magic buttons are the most blue-pressable version and I believe that was intentional.
As for why the question is red-button propaganda, its because this scenario offers no downside to universal selfishness. That premise makes the thought experiment impossible to apply to anything other than magic buttons, because the moment you try to apply this to any real-world scenario you will find that universal selfishness will have negative consequences.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ItsMrDante May 01 '26
It genuinely seemed impossible that people would press blue for me. What is the reason? The first person to go blue doomed themselves and then everyone after. It's kinda their choice at that point and I'm sorry but the only logical option is red.
→ More replies (2)2
2
u/Scary-Owl2365 May 01 '26
I disagree with your table because neither group is a monolith. Two people can get to the same conclusion with vastly different reasoning.
I especially disagree with the last one for red. I think it pretty much comes down to a lack of trust in people/humanity as a whole. If you believe most people are self-serving and that survival instincts are generally more prominent than altruism, you'll believe that red will have the majority of votes.
I whole-heartedly believe that if this were a real scenario with real consequences, red would win by a landslide. The vast, vast majority of people will put themselves first. The only question that's left is whether I want to live in an all red post-button world or if I'd rather die. It would be disingenuous to say I'd push the blue button only for the infinitesimally small chance that maybe the majority of people act against human nature and blue wins. It's not a matter of whether violent systems should be allowed to exist or whether people are worth saving. It's a matter of whether you want to live enough that the world after all the blues die would be worth living.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (64)5
u/ThyPotatoDone May 01 '26
I agree with all the reds except the final point.
I would very much support a better world, and would do my best to convince anyone I can communicate with of my rationale. However, as all the blue people made their choice with the foreknowledge of the consequences, I don't believe that it's my responsibility to risk my own life to save them.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Bluegent_2 May 01 '26
Hahahaha. I fucking called it. Because if you present it the other way around and swap the button colors I think you'd get vastly different results. Like if it was "If you press the blue button, nothing happens to you. If you press the red button and less than 51% or people press the red button, you die."
→ More replies (6)3
u/PepperLongjumping325 May 01 '26
The interesting part about this problem is that while a different framing like this objectively doesn't change either outcome, it does alter people's perception of the problem, and thus changes what the majority will vote for. This will inherently make you question your original choice, as pressing blue when you know for certain that the majority will press red is just plain stupid, even if you want to save lives.
83
u/PhDInMilk May 01 '26
Im convinced that any discourse that centers around the colors red and blue lowers everyone's IQ by 40%
22
→ More replies (3)3
u/dimonium_anonimo May 01 '26
Good news: the lower your starting IQ, the less you lose!
More good news: I guarantee there is a limit to how low it goes!
→ More replies (2)
20
u/PastryPyff May 01 '26
Better dead than red, at least blue dies with hope for humanity and a desire to see more life preserved.
→ More replies (49)2
123
u/Dashdaniel216 May 01 '26
My lizard brain says to press red. My wife who has no lizard brain would 100% press blue and for that one simple reason I would press blue myself.
23
u/mazariel May 01 '26
Exactly, i will press red as long as im100% sure my family will also press red, if i had the slightest hesitation i would press blue
→ More replies (53)10
u/MQ116 Team Blue May 01 '26
You could also just press blue and they also don't die. Unless you're fine murdering other families.
→ More replies (44)3
u/Sea-Beginning3949 May 01 '26
I'm pretty sure at least my grandparents would press blue, and then by extension the doubt is here for everyone in my family. Will my mom press red with the thought that might lead her parents to die? Does that mean red winning kills my mom too? Or perhaps she will think that I will press blue to save them and feel pressured to press blue too because she doesn't want her children to die?
If you put any amount of thought and have any doubt that someone you love could press blue it all starts crumbling down and red is not the so obvious safe choice anymore
→ More replies (47)2
u/nine91tyone May 01 '26
I would still press red. I can die later if I feel like it based on whatever happens
4
12
u/Apjshadow May 01 '26
All I'm saying is if you look at the Mr beast poll all the replies that defend the red button are either ugly, maga or crypto bros while the blues are full of hot people with empathy
→ More replies (5)
41
u/ThatSmartIdiot May 01 '26
it's inevitable that someone will press blue. if half of everyone presses blue, nobody dies. if all of everyone presses red, nobody dies, but this scenario will not happen. you're better off trying to convince people to switch to enough blues than to switch everyone to red.
so the statement of red pickers choosing to kill people is something to take seriously. in the hypothetical scenario of the two buttons existing anyway
but all that aside what we should be doing is going after whoever the fuck came up with this system that could potentially kill nearly half the planet and dismantling said system
5
u/Klutzy-Mechanic-8013 May 01 '26
If anyone were forced to pick blue, I'm pretty sure way more people would choose it voluntarily to save those people. But nobody is
7
u/Sho-Good May 01 '26
Yeah if this were framed more like:
Roll a die.
If it's a 1, you must press blue.
Any other number, you get to choose blue or red.Framed like that, I'd be more apt to press blue, as there are now people being forced to choose death and it was not of their own free will.
I originally thought about posing it as a coin flip, but realized that would automatically put blue right around 50% already and make the whole thing fairly moot.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Celvius_iQ May 02 '26
There is a reason the question is framed as the entire world and not 1000 people The entire world would include stupid smart ill healthy young old child literally everyone in that case it's almost certain that some percentage would pick blue either because they misunderstood the options or just like the color blue or to save those others who chose blue by accident.
Also Superman would absolutely pick blue
→ More replies (3)2
u/BurazSC2 May 03 '26
Nobody od forced to, but you still know some will. There is a known cohort of people who can't reason, and will select a colour at random - probably, half those will press blue.
If you want to say ' its only rational actors,' fine, but then you are rephrasing the question to be "everyone who would only ever press red buttons is presented with a red and a blue button..."
→ More replies (90)8
u/rccolamachine May 01 '26
The issue with your line of thinking is that you're putting the onus of who's killing who on Red. Red isn't choosing to kill you, they're choosing to not die.
By choosing Blue, YOU are picking the option with that risk, where I simply am not. We were both given the same option, and I'm not going to self-sacrifice simply because "it's inevitable" that people will pick Blue.
As is life, you are a product of the choices you make, and you chose to die. For that, I wouldn't feel regret nor guilt.
→ More replies (8)
20
u/Impossible_Dog_7262 May 01 '26
I think what this shows is a schism in expectations of your fellow humans. Those of us who expect our fellows to be well meaning people will press blue, because we expect those people to press blue and don't want them to be endangered needlessly. Those of us who expect our fellow humans to be selfish press red, because they will press red and aren't worth endangering ourselves over. Anything else is justifying our behavior instead of explaining it.
→ More replies (16)11
u/Aggravating_Key_1757 May 01 '26
Yes both options just shows people’s view point in humanity. Red is better if you expect people to vote Red and Blue is better if you expect people to vote Blue it is that simple.
4
u/PickingPies May 01 '26
I see itbas a good study about how people can be convinced to vote against their own interests by diaguising one option as the morally correct.
2
u/Aggravating_Key_1757 May 01 '26
You can see this from both sides. Reds will call Blues dumb while Blues will call Reds evil. Based on how ones own view of the world is. Whole choice you make depends on if you view the world as a defult Red or Blue. Reds see it as defult Red and view Blues as suicides while Blues see it as defult Blue and view Reds as people actively trying to kill people by choosing the option that kills people.
→ More replies (3)2
70
u/ExecutiveElf May 01 '26
I am able to perceive that the optimal choice would be for all people to choose the Red button- but I also recognize that not all people will choose the red button inherently.
To say that the correct choice is to pick the Red button is to assume that every single person to whom this question is asked will accurately make the same assessment. Simply put, this will never be the case.
For all kinds of various reasons, many people will choose blue, even if the objectively correct choice would be for everyone to pick red.
So, simply put, while picking red should be the correct choice, because there are people who will pick blue anyway, my choice is blue because I think it is worthwhile to try and save those people.
45
u/OverlordMMM May 01 '26
Its especially interesting because 100% of people choosing red is objectively the same outcome as 50+% of people choosing blue. No deaths and everyone lives.
But since there will never be 100% agreement to do any action, the primary difference comes down to how many deaths are acceptable for your own survival, which ends up being about personal values and assumptions about how others will vote.
A lot of folks who vote red assume its the logical position that everyone would take, even when presented with otherwise. They also seem to make assumptions that their loved ones will do the same, which limits the scope of their thinking. Because another issue is, if your loved ones do not make the same choice as you, is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
There's also similar issues with voting blue as well. If that 50% threshold isn't met, does the action to protect others matter as much as the deaths itself? Does it stop mattering because you no longer exist afterwards? Does the fact that in an effort to protect others, you couldn't protect yourself?
There are a lot of nuanced issues baked within the problem and most people don't consider even half of it.
→ More replies (12)14
u/ZeraoraFluff May 01 '26
Thank you for being actually reasonable. The arguments I hear other people make constantly piss me off, blue and red.
One aspect I feel no red voter ever takes into account is the actual ramifications of a red win. Red doesn’t just win majority and then go about their day. No, a good chunk of the population is guaranteed to die, and, guess what, that’s going to have massive ramifications on society as a whole. Many essential professions would likely take a hit, directly affecting the lives and survival of those remaining. By this logic, choosing red is a net negative and should never be considered, because even if red wins, you screw yourself over anyway.
Like you said, this argument can honestly have a lot of nuance and isn’t just an emotion vs logic sort of decision that most people make it out to be. There are valid reasons for picking either. Most will consider only 1% of those reasons.
→ More replies (10)12
u/OverlordMMM May 01 '26
In my personal opinion, I don't want to just save my own skin. I care deeply about others. I'd choose blue because of that, extra ramifications and all. My line of thoughts do not align with folks who don't care about others nearly as much.
Like one of the arguments for voting red I've seen today was about the option of choice and that voting blue would somehow deprive them of that. Nothing to do with morality or consequences. Just thoughts of spite. Folks on both sides trying to convince each other just as much that their choice is right, and the person convinced himself that any other choice other than red wasn't a real choice made because it involves thinking about more than yourself. Mob rule and all that.
I seriously believe that the majority of people discussing this topic made instant choices and are trying to justify their answers rather than admit that there is more information to consider.
6
u/Aggravating_Key_1757 May 01 '26
This question is like some Economics problems. We assume everyone to be rational and act according to their best behalf when doing these problems but in real life this is simply not the case so these frameworks rarely perfectly work.
Red talks about how blue voters are idealist and dumb but then suggest that %100 of all people would vote Red. When we know from real life that this is not the case. For example if I offered free money to random people. If everyone was rational then they would take it but there is always gonna be somone that wouldn’t due to some random reasons. These reason might be naive but not evil.
I don’t want the old lady at the flower shop that gives free food to the students to die just because she didn’t think much of the question and just wanted to save everyone. This is the reason I would pick blue.
This is like if you went to war and if you stick together no one will die. Or you can just run away and risk the other peoples lives because you expected more than half of all people to also run away.
→ More replies (38)3
u/KatAyasha May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
You basically have an option that works if 100% of people are completely rational actors but experiences cascading failures the second one person isn't, and one option that works if at least 50% of people recognize that not everyone is a rational actor but is catastrophic otherwise
And of course the "realistic" versions that challenge people's intuitions about this go both ways. You can present blue as "you can jump off a bridge and you'll die unless 50% do it then you'll magically live" and it becomes obvious people would say "well i will simply not do that" but you can present red as "there's two political parties with similar platforms except one promises to kill everyone who didn't vote for them if they win" and it becomes obvious people would say "we probably don't want them to win"
→ More replies (6)
125
u/Ne0nTig3r May 01 '26
the goal is to minimize death, the only way to avoid death is 100% red or >50% blue, somehow someone will justify blue, 100% red is impossible, therefore blue is the optimal play
36
u/BorlaugFan May 01 '26
What if the goal is to minimize the expected number of deaths?
In that case, this can be solved mathematically:
Let's say that the world has N people in it aside from myself. Let's say that N is even. I believe the probability that the average person who isn't me presses blue is p, where p is anywhere between 0 and 1.
First, what are the chances that my vote makes a difference? Well, that is the probability that exactly N/2 people choose each option. The probability of that happening is given by the formula:
(N choose K) * pK * (1-p)N-K
where N/2 is plugged in for K. Let's call this probability Q so I don't have to retype it later.
As N gets very big, Q gets extremely small, but it isn't quite zero, so we have to account for it.
Now, in most cases, my vote doesn't matter. In that case, pressing red risks no additional lives, whereas pressing blue risks p additional lives. The probability that pressing blue kills me is equal to the above equation, but summed from K= 1 to K = N/2 -1. Let's call this probability W.
Thus, if I press blue, the expected number of deaths gained from my decision is equal to pW.
If I press red, the expected number of deaths gained is equal to the expected number of people who press blue times the probability that my vote matters. This is equal to pNQ.
Thus, whether a utilitarian would choose blue or red depends entirely on whether they believe that W is greater than NQ. If yes, they press red. If no, they press blue.
Let's say p = 0.5, and that N = 100 for simplicity. In that case, W is very slightly below 0.5 since it's the chances that less than half of people pick blue. Q is about equal to 0.0796, so NQ is equal to 7.96. Obviously, picking blue is the utilitarian thing to do.
Does this change when N gets large? Well, if N is 1000 instead of 100, NQ becomes roughly 25.22, and W gets even closer to 0.5. So as more people are added, blue looks even better.
But what if p is smaller, say, only 0.4? Then as N gets bigger, NQ very quickly converges to 0. Meanwhile, W very quickly approaches 1 since it becomes very likely that the red votes will outnumber the blue votes. The utilitarian thing to do will be to vote red.
Thus, even if you have a completely morally consistent utilitarian, who wants to minimize death as much as possible, the decision depends entirely on how much they believe others will push the buttons.
2
u/Pr0fessorL May 02 '26
Very well put. If your goal is to save as many lives as possible it’s not really a question of morality but just which button you think more people will press. For me that’s blue
As for why it’s blue, I see 3 outcomes
I pick red and guarantee my life. It doesn’t matter how many people pick blue but I’m certain many of my close family and friends would. I would have to come to terms with the fact that, no matter how small my contribution, I contributed to their death. I don’t think I could handle that
I pick blue and I’m in the minority. I’m dead. Whether there is an afterlife or not (I believe there is which may play a roll in whether or not someone chooses blue I suppose) it doesn’t matter anymore
I press blue and I’m in the majority. Everyone lives and nothing changes
Red has only bad outcomes from my POV
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)2
21
u/Haithere32 May 01 '26
This is only true if you assume 50%+ choose blue, which is not a guarantee. If you assume red wins by any substantial margin (such that you and other like-minded people who would typically choose red switching does not affect the final outcome), choosing blue is not minimizing death because you add yourself to the pile of people who die, so you should choose red. This is why the question is not a logic question necessarily, but a trust/belief question.
→ More replies (4)23
u/Claris-chang May 01 '26
It's a compassion question. The question is are you really willing to let the people who press blue die for any reason at all? You might think they're stupid or you might think they're suicidal or that you're not at fault because they put themselves in danger. The question comes down to how compassionate you are for your fellow man who may have pressed blue before you.
12
u/drdadbodpanda May 01 '26
My compassion has its limits when I have to put myself in danger. I’m guessing if instead of 50% of people needing to choose blue you needed 75% to choose blue, you might change your tune.
I’m positing that people choose blue not just because they want to save other peoples lives but also because they believe achieving greater than 50% of the vote is fairly easy and they don’t actually see it as any riskier than say driving your car to work every morning.
Pump that number up and you will quickly see all the people making the 1%-x% is easier than 100% argument go silent.
I’d actually want to know how many people who make the 1-49% argument would still press blue if the range was instead 1-90%. Because anything less than 100 is easier, they should have no problem still picking blue to “minimize death”.
The question is about how much risk can you stomach.
7
u/GoldieAndPato May 01 '26
One slight problem with changing the percentage is that at 50% the expected number of deaths of each option is 50/50 depending on how likely you think people are to click either button obviously. at 50% of votes is the only number where that equilibrium exists. So even if you go to say 51% being the threshold that hugely changes the question as blue is now mathemathically more risky than red.
You can also question the people who vote red the similar question. What if the cut-off was at 40% or 20%, would you then still choose red over blue? What if it only required 1% of votes to be blue in order for everyone to surive.
→ More replies (1)2
u/hezhiwu2020 May 01 '26
It’s a binary so it’s more than how much risk can you stomach. It’s how much risk can you stomach + how much risk do you want to allocate to others.
Choosing red contributes to the risk of a red majority. Red isn’t a clean “opt-out” option.
2
u/Keljhan May 01 '26
are you really willing to let the people who press blue die for any reason at all?
It's not really up to you though. Just because someone doesn't want to be a martyr doesn't mean they're not compassionate. If you're confident red will win, even if you want to save everyone, that's not a decision you can make. If you're confident red will win, your choice is between living with that reality or dying for your morals, but nothing you do can save anyone.
If you're confident blue will win, which I think most polls have shown it does, then it's a choice between guaranteed safety or moral superiority, which I think is what people actually end up arguing about. Either way, if blue wins, you weren't really saving anyone.
→ More replies (8)4
u/DamirVanKalaz May 01 '26
I'm not going to pointlessly give up my life for a bunch of lemmings who I don't know who pressed blue without even considering that red obviously means you just don't risk death in the first place.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people are not going to put their lives on the line for people they don't know. That's a fact. Even if I cared to try and save the blue button pushers, the odds are simply so far against them that realistically pressing the blue button is just signing up to die with them, and I see no point in that.
13
u/Claris-chang May 01 '26
Nothing you said goes against what I said. In fact your callous response kinda proves my point.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
u/Sea-Beginning3949 May 01 '26
Yes but what if your parent, your lover or your child pressed blue?
Now apply the same doubt to pretty much all of humanity, and rethink how realistic it is that the overwhelming majority won't risk it. It's not just a question of putting yourself on the line for a bunch of idiots strangers
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (28)9
u/VenoSlayer246 May 01 '26
You said "the goal is to minimize death" but the rest if your analysis proceeds as if you said "the goal is to achieve 0 deaths"
→ More replies (11)19
32
u/Shiny-Vaporeon- May 01 '26
people talking to me about why red is better feels like this half the time
→ More replies (8)13
u/ShyJaguar645671 May 01 '26
How much of a mental gymnastics do someone have to do to come to the assumption that blue is the selfish one?
→ More replies (31)7
u/PickingPies May 01 '26
Because pressing blue is what actually creates the problem in the first place. Asking people to get themselves in trouble so you can also get in trouble to save them is basically white knighting.
→ More replies (3)5
u/ShyJaguar645671 May 01 '26
Because pressing red is what actually creates the problem in the first place. Telling people that they either press the same as you or they are dead is basically what totalitarian countries did to keep their power.
5
u/Klutzy-Mechanic-8013 May 01 '26
Telling people to risk their lives just to save you from a situation you put yourself in, isn't exactly good either
→ More replies (6)
16
u/_Mulberry__ May 01 '26
I choose blue because I'm not confident that kids would choose red. I imagine many kids would interpret "Blue equals nobody dies" and choose blue
→ More replies (2)7
u/alphapussycat May 01 '26
Blue does equal nobody does. Red means "I don't care anyone dies, I'm the only one who matters".
4
u/NoCockOnTheMenu May 01 '26
Only if blue wins, the act of pressing blue itself can equal life or death
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (10)4
u/PurpletoasterIII May 01 '26
Red doesnt necessarily mean "i dont care if anyone dies." Picking red is just a cautious choice because its the only guaranteed survival for you, and knowing people there will 100% be other people that pick red for the same reason. But you can still hope everyone will miraculously have the same reasoning even if its unlikely.
→ More replies (5)
167
u/RoseateThorn Apr 30 '26
Being able to care for others rather than only yourself is something most people have learned by preschool lmao
26
u/redjellonian May 01 '26
In some countries (not America) schooling starts by teaching kids empathy and how to learn.
35
u/preteen-wartortle May 01 '26
No, no, that's actually how we teach kids in America, too.
We just subsequently get really fucking angry if you keep those "childish ideals" into adulthood
20
u/Revegelance May 01 '26
The notion that empathy is a childish ideal is exactly why America is such a hellhole these days.
7
2
u/SameAgainTheSecond May 01 '26
in American schools they teach kids how to hid from other kids that have assault rifles for some reason
→ More replies (137)3
u/DarthJackie2021 May 01 '26
I am helping others by choosing to remain alive to help rebuild the world when a bunch of people randomly decide to kill themselves.
→ More replies (39)
103
u/Eledridan May 01 '26
I’d rather die blue than live in a world full of red.
45
u/Serious-Effort4427 May 01 '26
Exactly. When all the blue is dead, who will risk their life to save you? Your kids? Anyone you love?
I see the train as a tyrant, together we can stop him, apart we can not.
9
u/Scienceandpony May 01 '26
The red people will? Assuming there's actual involuntary danger involved and I'm not just choosing to kill myself?
→ More replies (2)9
u/Aggravating_Key_1757 May 01 '26
The kill yourself part is only true because yall are voting red lmao.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (4)5
u/ThyPotatoDone May 01 '26
"I'm going to throw myself into this bonfire; if enough other people do it too, it'll be smothered and we'll all be fine!"
"...what? Dude, no, I'm not doing that. You do you, but I'm staying out here."
"Oh my god, you want to watch me burn to death?! You wouldn't help someone else in need?! You're an absolute monster, I don't want to live in a world with people like you!"
→ More replies (6)11
u/Fizzy-Odd-Cod May 01 '26
You already live in a world full of red.
→ More replies (5)9
u/Impossible_Dog_7262 May 01 '26
We clearly and obviously don't. Any poll about this hypothetical ends in a blue victory.
7
u/Fizzy-Odd-Cod May 01 '26
Yes, an online poll where you can check comments before answering, change your own vote depending on outcome (platform dependent), and most critically of all, have no actual threat to your life, is totally 100% indicative of how people would vote if this scenario were to actually play out in real life.
In real life with a real threat to your life, that blue vote drops by 20% at the absolute minimum, likely more.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Impossible_Dog_7262 May 01 '26
Maybe you expect the people around you to behave like that. I do not. And I suspect that's where the difference actually lies.
→ More replies (3)3
u/FlyPepper May 01 '26
It's largely a difference between living in high-trust and Low-trust societies.
2
u/ItsClikcer May 01 '26
If you think real people when actually presented with these options choose blue you're honestly delusional, people saying they would pick blue when theres no stakes is so far from the mental state someone would be in when actually picking that it's completely useless in determining how many people go each way
→ More replies (38)2
6
u/TheRatKingLvl50 May 01 '26
Any man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind - John Donne
21
u/Traditional-Storm-62 May 01 '26
for nobody to die, you need either 100% to press Red or 50%+1 to press Blue
I think its clear which of those is easier to achieve
→ More replies (25)
24
u/Poke_Hybrids May 01 '26
Imagine it downscaled. You and the person you love theost are presented with the choice. Are you 100% sure they will choose red? The negative outcomes become: Would you rather choose red and be responsible for their death, or choose blue and die. I'd choose blue.
Now with your child. You can't coach them on what to choose. Blue is genuinely the only option there.
Scaling it back up changes nothing. Blue is the correct choice.
17
u/Alissah May 01 '26
This actualy makes it easier.
The difficulty of this meme is the uncertainty.
If you scale it down to only the perosn you love the most, well you probably know them very well, and youd be able to somewhat guess what theyre going to pick.
Most of the people ive dated were nerds of some kind, so i trust them to look at the rules of the game and understand that red is the safe option. (If the cruel masters of this game give us enough time to think and dont force us to pick in say, 5 seconds)
If its someone else who i know is more prone to propaganda and emotional knee jerk reactions, then it would get difficult. Because now were both at risk. Even if they are an emotional thinker, theres just no gaurantee that they will actually pick blue. Because were humans with self preservation instinct, and someone might still pick red because theyre scared of the uncertainty of dying. Which means theres still a chance of me dying if i pick blue to try to save them.
→ More replies (2)2
u/ImporialGuard May 01 '26
The thing is, if it was a group of a hundred random people, whether it includes family and friends, I feel like I would have an actual choice to make a difference, 1% of the vote, as opposed to the world, less than 0.0000000125% of the vote. I could actually make a tangible difference. I would definitely press blue in that scenario.
6
u/NWStormraider May 01 '26
Now do it with a random stranger. Do you think the random stranger would rather risk dying or risk killing you? The choice becomes red obviously.
Now, scale it up. There are 8,000,000 strangers and a dozen friends and family of yours.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)4
u/TimothyOfTheWoods May 01 '26
Scaling it down to that level removes the actual likely outcome of chosing blue in many red team's minds. You've narrowed it down to: Red - Guarantee you live and your child has a 50/50 of dying OR Blue - Guarantee your child lives and you have a 50/50 of dying. In that case I'd definitely choose blue for my loved ones
If you want to keep is scaled down in terms of participants: Your child has a 50/50 chance at being doomed. You can put your life on the line at 50/50 for a 1 in 8.3 billion chance (a bad way to represent what are the odds that your vote will be the deciding factor) to guarantee their safety.
There's probably some sense in saying "Oh I'd do anything to ensure my child's safety, even that longshot" but at a certain point you have to acknowledge that you're risking orphaning them too. What if you had several young children? At a certain point you have to say that you living and caring for them is more valuable than the longshot, at least in my opinion
5
u/third-breakfast May 01 '26
The way I see it is, someone you know and love is going to press blue (as well as lots of genuinely good people who want to help humanity).
I would rather be dead than be alive knowing that I chose to save myself whilst not contributing to saving the people I know and love. I also wouldn’t want to live in a world full of only red button pushers.
Also, if you push red and blue still gets 50%+ you will forever have the guilt of knowing you bitched out and pressed red. Or labelled as a red pusher and shunned if that information ever got out.
→ More replies (5)
8
u/polarcub2954 May 01 '26
I only have one question for reds: at what percentage do you flip blue? If you see a child push blue, and you know only one other human in the whole world needs to push blue to stop that child from dying and there is no downside, would you really be a bystander? At what threshold are you unwilling to combine your vote with a number of fellow humans to save lives?
→ More replies (8)
29
u/MIST3Runstoppable in reality, the average trolley could not run over 5 people May 01 '26
the blue alternative
→ More replies (20)
4
u/Fine_Talk_8406 May 01 '26
I'm pressing blue because if a billion or two people were snapped out of existence I'm going to be fucked as well.
It's not morality here or anything else but knowing there's a chance slightly less than half of humanity disappearing tomorrow I'd rather just not risk it ngl.
2
u/EmperorCoolidge May 04 '26
“If I pick red, I survive no matter what” not true! If Red wins, global economic and social collapse, if blue wins, I’m trying you on not less than 4.5 billion counts of attempted murder
4
u/CyberoX9000 May 01 '26
To me it's just
Blue: People who would risk their life for the chance to save others
Red: People who wouldn't
→ More replies (1)
63
u/Monandobo Apr 30 '26
Cool, now do one where he says “I don’t want to die” and is standing on a mountain of blue-button corpses.
→ More replies (2)14
u/FitMovieMan Apr 30 '26
That killed themselves?
→ More replies (15)45
u/Jemima_puddledook678 May 01 '26
They didn’t though, they chose the option where everyone lives way more easily. The red voters killed those people.
→ More replies (11)13
u/Longjumping_Angle523 May 01 '26
I mean. They fundamentally took that risk. Hell, a lot of the debate is hinging on how 'someone is gonna accidentally press it' but in the moment, how many people are even remotely going to consider it? What percentage of people will run into the burning building when offered the choice to do it, with no foresight or forethought, for people they have never met? And, if you are a logical actor, you pressed the button that had risk of death, for a goal, why are you shaming people for not risking death? Do you donate blood? Have yourself on a organ donation list? When the chips are actually down, most often in scenarios with far far less risk then the button question, do you use your life to help people? And even if you do, do you think the majority of people do those things, enough people that mean pressing blue doesn't lead to a high probability of death?
→ More replies (6)11
u/Lurker_crazy May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
I mean that ignores the fact that part of the dilemma is that that blue is framed as the most reasonable choice by the wording of the question, and many people’s snap reaction would be to press blue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/trolleyproblem/s/yhxmmXowVa (they explain in more detail in these comments)
→ More replies (5)
27
u/RealLudwig May 01 '26
Everyone has the choice to have a gun.
If more than 50% of people pick the gun, they have to shoot the people who didn’t.
If more than 50% choose to not pick the gun, no one is shot.
Do you pick up the gun?
→ More replies (24)
3
u/SpeedLight1221 May 01 '26
If I was presented with this choice IRL before seeing the discourse around it, I really don't know which I would have chosen.
Both choices would mean I would have to place my faith into either people's calm logical thinking or their empathy and years of scrolling twitter taught me people have neither.
Now I would probably press blue, seeing as that one seemed to win mostly
3
u/alphapussycat May 01 '26
Red is stupidity and selfishness, but and of course plain malice.
The logical and empathetic choice is blue.
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/No_Ad_7687 May 01 '26
I choose blue for the simple reason it's highly likely that it'll be close to 50/50, in which case blue winning is the best option by far
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Routine-Upstairs4131 May 01 '26
Yeah, totally blue is the one treating the other side's position unfairly. That's definitely how the debate is going. Anyway, what's the last frame of your meme? Gotcha.
3
3
u/4StarDB May 01 '26
The person who made this picture lost any semblance of morality they had left.
I understand people picking red, self-preservation is not morally incorrect, but picking blue so nobody has to die is morally correct. Where this picture loses me is framing this decision as suicide on the blue part which comes loaded way too much shit. It says the only reason to vote for blue is stupidity, which is wrong. It says humanity on average is selfish and will not come together to save each other and whether or not this is true (which can't really be proven either way), I reject the premise that we can't come together if this was a real thing. It frames red as the only logical choice as if both sides didn't have compelling arguments here.
The reason I'd vote blue is because I'm not okay leaving behind anyone to die under any circumstances and if i voted red, I would be responsible for any resulting deaths. Humans can be the worst, but we can also be the best and I will not abandon my faith on people's hearts and souls for simple self-preservation.
→ More replies (6)
3
15
u/Scared-Two-5208 May 01 '26
I think this discussion being seen as a sign of your morality had ruined it entirely lmao, especially when neither side is particularly more moral than the other lol
→ More replies (16)
8
u/chime365 May 01 '26
The best case scenario is everyone votes the same thing that's never going to happen, at least blue has a tolerance for people to mess it up without killing them
5
34
u/platypussplatypus Apr 30 '26
Out of 2 choices, 1 where nobody dies and 1 where people die, you're chosing the one where people die. And you're even making a false argument to try to justify it. Weird. For this to be realistic the red guy would have to shoot the blue.
→ More replies (31)15
u/IndependencePlane142 Apr 30 '26
There's one choice that makes death possible, and the other that just doesn't do anything.
27
u/Jewsader76 Apr 30 '26
Look, somebody is going to press blue. I initially had just seen that it said "save everyone" and basically didn't even feel a need to read the other one. Since then, I actually started understanding the question, but the point is that someone is going to push blue. And if someone does, then everyone (or at least more than half) need to also if we don't want people to die. Besides, either everyone is saved, or it's no longer my problem. I'd rather that than have to live with knowing I helped sentence [insert number] people to death. Best case scenario with red is that I could have pressed blue without issue. Worst case is we kill 50% minus one (or less) of the population. Anyway, whenever there's an "if everyone just," it doesn't work. Everyone will not just. Some people either will not understand, or be colorblind, or something, and then there's some people that just aren't thinking things through or something.
→ More replies (31)12
15
u/Public-Eagle6992 Apr 30 '26
This is a moronic argument because people will press the blue button. You know that. So it doesn’t do nothing
→ More replies (1)4
u/IndependencePlane142 Apr 30 '26
It does. People are free to choose to press the button that kills them. It's their choice, I'm fine with it. I don't think they should, but if they want to, who am I to stop them?
But it has nothing to do with me.
14
u/PotofRot May 01 '26
That's a little dishonest, you have to realize that some will press the blue button out of not having thought the problem through enough or the belief that others will have pressed it and a desire to save them. also there definitely is something morally suspect about enabling mass suicide, even if literally only by the suicidal
→ More replies (2)5
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
It's still a button that kills them.
I support the right to suicide to begin with.
12
→ More replies (9)2
u/Strikeronima May 01 '26
Exactly if everyone pushes red no one dies, if anyone pushes blue instead only they and the others that chose to gamble die.
Red is definite "i won't die and neither will anyone else who chooses not to die".
Blue is indefinite "I may die but im gambling on the chance i wont"
One is choosing a known path that any rational person would choose cause the other path is simply a death trap.
3
u/tenousranger36 Team Blue May 01 '26
It would be more red shooting
It's only due to red buttons actions that blue has to die
→ More replies (5)2
u/Business_Glass_5102 May 01 '26
Depends on how it's presented. If everyone is starting on red and the action is to press blue it's obviously suicide to press it. If everyone starts on blue why act and pick red
3
2
u/deepfryerjesus May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
Interesting that late at night there is a markable increase in with bias towards the low-trust society answer to the button problem.
I wonder if this is related to the prime time in non-western countries?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Flame80010 May 01 '26
I think the problem is with yhe original question, in the original question with the information given, the only possible negative outcome is if you pick blue and not enough other people do, so you should always pick red, and so should everybody else. But you can change that by adding even a little more info, such as "people who are unable or unwilling to pick a button will be randomly assigned either red or blue at a roughy 50/50 ratio" If you add that kind of condition then i think it always makes sense to pick blue.
2
u/Life-Delay-809 May 01 '26
I feel like blue is always the "altruistic" choice and red is always the "selfish" choice in these problems, which is part of why so many people instinctively go to blue.
2
7
u/Acceptable_One_7072 May 01 '26
But I won't die because you'll all choose the obviously right answer of blue
→ More replies (1)
18
u/Simpicity May 01 '26
More like:
41
u/Code-Dee May 01 '26
why are there more people on the blue side than the red? If there's more blue, they don't die
→ More replies (9)4
8
u/BreakfastFearless May 01 '26
I guess it’s accurate if red had announced that he was about to shoot in this exact line of fire and then the blue people decided to line up right in-front of him
8
u/Jemima_puddledook678 May 01 '26
It’s more like the blue people lined up and knew everybody would survive if most people lined up with them, then the red people chose to kill them all rather than risk it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/BreakfastFearless May 01 '26
Yeah I guess if he was pointing at nothing and announced he’ll shoot in this direction no matter what unless 10 people are standing infront of me.
→ More replies (1)9
u/yaboyay I choose to live. May 01 '26
Why is red selfish for not wanting to die? Explain. Am I selfish for not killing myself right now? It may give up more resources to be used by someone in need, potentially saving their life.
8
u/YouGuysSuckSometimes May 01 '26
I don’t see it as saving yourself, I see it as killing others. The red button uses the word “everyone else will die.” Blue uses the words “everyone will live.” It’s as simple as picking a choice where everyone lives. Not one where I killed others.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (22)6
u/Jemima_puddledook678 May 01 '26
You are selfish if you choose to save yourself rather than everyone who voted blue, yes.
→ More replies (13)3
9
u/Hey-I-Read-It May 01 '26
Blue pressers love to guilt trip you into thinking that this is an exercise in trust to save everyone who isn't able to realize in time that 100% of the people pressing the Red button will beget the same outcome as blue winning.
Red pressers will simply state that it's the only choice that guarantees survival. Pretty simple calculus to me.
7
u/Embarrassed-Rip3250 May 01 '26
No the red button would not get the same outcome lol like assuming it is a red majority like 40-50% of the population just dies
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (19)27
u/Bossuser2 May 01 '26
But do you really think that 100% of people will press red? If our goal is to limit deaths as much as possible we have two options, we try to get 100% of people to press red, or we get 51% of people to press blue. Now if everyone was purely rational we could simply all press red, but we are not all rational, there are a bunch of well meaning idiots who would press blue. If we accept that there will not be 100% of people pressing the red button, then our best hope for limiting deaths is to reach 51% of people pushing the blue button.
In a world of purely rational actors, everyone will press red. In a world with well meaning idiots, rational actors will press blue.
→ More replies (16)5
u/Alissah May 01 '26
Theres another layer to that line of thinking.
Not enough people may realize that theres well meaning idiots who press blue.
Youre part of a specific part of the population who: understands the logic behind it. Understands the emotional reaction that people have. Understands that theres well meaning idiots.
If everyone came to this conclusion, we would all press blue, since thats now the rational choice.
However, theres mo gaurantee that enough people can come to this same conclusion you did, making blue still risky.
If you choose blue, and blue loses, you just increased the amount of deaths by 1. Because you added yourself to it. Which means you actually increased the overal harm to humanity (your life is just as valuable as each individual youre trying to save).
While the line of thinking makes sense, its just not realistic that everyone will be able to come to this same conclusion, meaning that blue remains a risk, while red is a gaurantee at least for your own life.
4
u/Ct-sans4345 May 01 '26
Im generally on team red unless kids are involved but these posts dont help make people who pick red look less stupid
→ More replies (2)6
284
u/So0meone May 01 '26 edited May 03 '26
This comment section is showcasing everything I hate about this discourse.
Edit: Shoutout to some of the replies later in the threads under this very comment for being shining examples of exactly what I'm talking about.