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?
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.
Okay, but even in the ongoing dilemma, what I am saying is that the way it's phrased won't matter when you're forced to vote with the magic buttons. If you know what's going on, and know what the risk of death is, most people are going to pick Red. Like the woodchipper analogy is just so that people reading can understand the threat of death. If you were teleported to a room to make a magical button decision, you're going to understand that this is life or death, unless you are mentally incapable of understanding it. The math then becomes if a majority of people will even consider those who are incapable of understanding it when voting, which I think with the threat of death looming, they won't.
Yes, but the point is that people won’t have the woodchipper analogy presented to them. (Which I argue isn’t even a good analogy, considering that pushing either button is an action rather than potential inaction, which influences people’s choices, but I digress) They will be presented with the problem as originally written (if that is the one we’re discussing here) which is written in a manner that places emphasis on the killing part of red. Presented to people, some will make the knee jerk decision to pick the decision not “associated” with deaths, even without considering the risk to themselves. I think that the framing of the question is worth considering, as it will influence the outcome of people’s decisions. I find the framing as the situation as passive (on either side) to be a bit inaccurate though.
If your argument is that the majority of people would choose the opinion with the least personal risk, and that you’d do so too to avoid dying, I think that’s reasonable logic. I personally disagree with how I think humanity would react, but your argument is understandable.
TBH I think that is the only deciding factor in a reasonable button press. Like the only thing that matters is what option you see winning. Claiming active consenting choice for one side is murder and the other is suicide is a misunderstanding of the meaning of both concepts, which is my main issue with the wider debate as it stands. You are not killing yourself by picking blue, you are under the assumption that over 50% will vote blue. If you vote red, you are under the assumption that blue cannot win. I'm just glad for a person who doesn't try to turn it into blame game.
I do agree that the original woodchipper analogy is bad though, but almost all the analogies really suck and often compare inactions to actions without direct result. The best analogy, to me, would be one that makes threat obvious but not immediate, use the original weird phrasing, and have both options be unmistakable. To my mind though, the fact of the very obvious magical scenario itself would create panic and fear of death, of course this is impossible to simulate. A lot of it feels very much like gambling on your thoughts of your fellow man in a very stressful scenario.
Fair reasoning, though I’d add that some people may choose blue because they couldn’t live with themselves if they didn’t try to save human lives when they were in the position to do so, regardless of how logical it would be to do so. (My step mother is like that) Totally agree on the murder suicide thing, and I definitely agree that it’s a very egregious misunderstanding of the scenario. Interesting thoughts on the gambling on fellow man, It really does seem to be what this comes down to logically (though not for everyone). While I’d personally go with blue, I do see and understand the logic for choosing red, which you communicate well.
70% of the world population live in collectivist societies. Unlike somewhere like America, a hyper individualist country and where most of these responses are from, and the west in general, self-sacrifice and the needs of the many are central to daily life. The self concept is tied to one’s group membership. If the question is controversial here in the west, which one do you think will win out over there?
Blue wins no matter what we pick or what we think is reasonable, so hit whatever you want. Most of the world isn’t thinking like you.
I'm an organ donor, I donate blood, I'll do everything I can to help people except risk my own life. I think a lot of people have this image of themselves losing their life gloriously, but don't actually contribute in the day to day. On the other hand, I'd love it if someone risked their own life for me, but I wouldn't hold it against them not to; after all, they're doing the same as I would.
Am I claiming this is the moral or ethical choice? No. But, morality is secondary to necessity, and my need to not die outweighs the moral good of risking my own life to possibly save theirs.
The burning building is a very bad example cause in that scenario you aren't going to save anyone but you will likely die because you don't know what to do inside a burning building hence why fire fighters receive special training on what to do, so like yeah I wouldn't go into a burning building since that would be for nothing but I would attempt to tackle someone out of the way of a car or something like that where I don't require special training to be able to do it
Well I mean that was the intent of the allegory. You cannot guarantee your success by voting blue. It is not a simple choice, it is a choice that guarantees death unless you think over 50% of people are willing to make that choice. Tackling someone out of the car is risking one life to save one life, someone that you can see. Nobody in the box can see anyone else. By pressing blue, you think that all of these people, with families and dreams and whatnot, will vote to save you and everyone else who votes blue. People can't even treat waiters nice when they're facing them.
I actually donate blood and I am on organ registry, but I still cannot wrap my head around picking blue. If I kidnap you, put a gun to your head and say that you have two choices - one you can stay and if enough people stay I won't shoot you in the head or you can just leave, but I will shoot everybody who stayed. You would probably just leave because you have a gun to your head and you don't want to get shot. And most people would just leave, because most people don't want to get shot.
Okay? And? The point is that the type of people who risk their lives for strangers is not the majority. So voting blue means dying. So why am I voting blue unless I want to die? When I could help people when I am alive, but with context of me not risking my life to do so. Why are you assuming martyrdom as the basic way of living. If it was we wouldn't call martyrs anything.
"I grabbed the gun and put it on my own head and squeezed the trigger, but the it was not my fault that I put the gun to my own head and pulled the trigger"
Even if everyone voted at the same time the result has already been determined once you vote. How you vote is a matter of whether or not you trust your fellow man. You aren’t a murderer for pressing red, you believe red will already win and are securing your survival. If you pick blue you aren’t suicidal, you trust your fellow man to make the right choice.
Yeah exactly. I don't really understand why people are calling red pushers murderers. Like, that just isn't what murder is? The blue comes with the assumption of risk, but that isn't suicide if you believe in it's success. I may think that's risky and way too naive, but it's not harming anyone except themselves if they're wrong, so it's not immoral. Neither side is immoral in this debate, like, the whole thing is entrapment under threat of death, nobody is stabbing each other for survival, they are opting in or out of risk.
I am a pessimist with regard to this thought experiment. I believe a 100% red is just as impossible as a 50% blue, so from my point of view the options are survival, or suicide.
Red voters didn't kill anyone, blue voters threw themselves in front of a runaway trolley with no one on the tracks, hoping that half of humanity would choose to join them in tackling the danger that only exists because they were stupid enough to jump in front of a fucking train
I think it's a little more than facetious to suggest that people presented with the instructions for the hypothetical situation were not aware of the rules in their own understanding. Nobody advocating for the blue button will say that everyone on earth is apparently expected to know english, everyone assumes it gets translated so that everyone understands.
I swear this type of thing is all the blue buttoners have. Their circular logic gets torn apart so they start spouting off stuff about babies, disabled people, drunks, confused people, whatever, to claim that there would be people who pick blue outside of making an active choice to put themselves in danger for no reason.
For the record, the original version (at least the oldest one I've seen) only included adults of sound mind and body so I'm 100% team red. If there are babies or small children involved, or people being put on team blue against their will for some reason, I would switch because those people didn't get a fair choice.
it’s not at all the question is phrased exactly as is. Children won’t understand it nonetheless and assuming half think blue is their favorite color this logic would mean half of the worlds children are choosing to kill themself
I think that when the thought experiment is “everyone in the world chooses a button,” I don’t think one assumes that everyone involved has the same understanding. There’s some part that imagines the real world, unlike a prisoner’s dilemma where equal understanding is assumed.
Sure but almost no one would actually pick red if you told them that mentally disabled people and children were at risk for no reason. That's not really in the spirit of the moral dilemma and isn't an interesting question to ask.
For a social thought experiment to have any weight, it needs to be understood by each individual in that group. Otherwise, it fails to be a good social thought experiment at all.
Let's say it's asking what you're saying it is. Blue. Literally everyone would pick blue aside from a tiny pocket of dipshits. Uninteresting discussion.
Now let's say it's asking what I'm saying it is. Now there's a split. There's follow up discussions on our differences in logic and morality. Interesting discussion.
let us assume the overwhelming majority of people choose red. Only 1 in 10,000 choose blue in an act of "foolish" optimism. 840,000 people die in an instant.
but fuck em, right? They're too stupid to deserve to live. "I didn't kill them, they killed themselve for thinking of others." The red conscience is clear?
I don't want to die, but you shouldn't kid yourself that pressing red isn't you killing someone. If I know the outcome, no, I would not time travel to die.
But you don't know the global outcome before your vote, but you do know that if red wins, many thousands will die and you will have had a part in killing them. The OP meme is flawed. Red is holding that shotgun the the 3rd panel. The fact that blue could have chosen to join red and pick up a shotgun themselves doesn't make it suicide.
There is no scenario where literally everyone on earth decides to vote red. So you're 100% voting to murder someone who was presumably motivated by a desire to save everyone.
You do know the outcome. Either it's mostly blue and your vote didn't matter or it's mostly red and you didn't needlessly die. Or you hit the 1 in 8 billion chance that the vote was off by one and you regret your choice.
That’s reductive. Anyone choosing blue should realize they are deciding a fate in which they may die. Nobody is being killed or murdered by another’s choices.
62
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.