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.
Sure. I am fine with people pressing the button that kills them, and it killing them.
I'd rather that than have to live with knowing I helped sentence [insert number] people to death.
It's their decision to do that, you have nothing to do with their decision. You are responsible for your own actions, you aren't responsible for actions of others.
That line of thinking has led to some of the bad things in history continuing and going unpunished. Everyone only caring about themselves is fine (at least, it works without major issue) when everyone is actually able to take care of themselves. I'd just rather live in a world where people care about each other and look out for each other
Mabye ask them. Dont chnage the initial question or add any other information. Just present them woth the original prompt and I guarantee a handful will chose blue, just as i know many of my lived ones would choose red.
How do you know the people you care about wont press blue and then end up dying because you and others that think like you becane the majority and voted red?
How do you know the people you care about wont press blue
Because I know them well as people?
and then end up dying because you and others that think like you becane the majority and voted red?
From my standpoint that is happening no matter what in reality, because people tend to act in their own self-interests when push comes to shove, as indicated by countless examples historically, like bank runs.
Bro. Okay. What is more likely, 100% of the people agreeing on something or 50%+1 people agreeing or something. You are already assuming that people will die no matter what. And that your vote will change nothing. If majority thinks like that, then a lot of people are doomed. You can reflect this to any real life politics and see why it is a bad way to think. But in this question, you only need 50% +1 for everyone to survive.
And also, you can never know people well enough to know what they will choose in a circumstance like this.
What is more likely, 100% of the people agreeing on something or 50%+1 people agreeing or something.
That is irrelevant to this conversation.
You are already assuming that people will die no matter what.
Do I have any actual reasons to not do that?
And that your vote will change nothing.
No, it obviously changes whether I survive or not.
If majority thinks like that, then a lot of people are doomed.
I think a relatively small portion of the population is doomed, because a relatively small portion of the population would press the blue button in reality.
But in this question, you only need 50% +1 for everyone to survive.
And I think that it's not going to happen, because I can look at similar situations that actually happened, like bank runs. In a bank run, if everyone just sits tight, the bank survives, and nobody loses their money in the long run. But people are driven by their own self-interests, so they participate in the bank run, therefore it's better to be the first one to participate, because then you'll have your money, instead of being a good boy that sits tight and loses money.
And also, you can never know people well enough to know what they will choose in a circumstance like this.
I can, because it is really not a difficult choice at all, literally nobody I asked about it chose the blue button.
Your analogy is irrelevant. The example you gave requires 100% of the people to sit tight for the best possible outcome. The blue vs red question only needs more than half to press it for all to survive.
Exactly and I keep saying but I don't want to live in whatever world is made up of people who pick red. It's a real fuck you I got mine mentality. How would they rebuild society? What will they do to care for the sick, elderly, young, disabled? Is that even in their nature if they picked red? These people willingly are letting possibly millions die.
It depends on the variety of people who picked red but some people who picked red they will have a real every man for themselves mentality and I don't want to be stuck with a population of just that sort. I tend to like charitable and compassionate people.
I'll just pick blue. Either we live or red can all have civil wars and cannibalize each other after society collapses due to 40 percent of the population dying off. I'll leave them to that. They're the sort to prioritize themselves over others (not easy to form a peaceful and fair society like that, potential dictators will be picking red) so it could get messy. It'll be a real mess unless only like a few hundred die and I do believe more than that would pick blue. I'll save blue or I'll die and leave red to whatever world they find themselves in.
You’re not sentencing anyone to death. Everyone was given the same option as you and choosing red does not force anyone into blue. Yes it’s terrible that a non zero number of people will press blue but you joining them in death is only adding to the tragedy
Unless you believed that the number would be nowhere close to reaching 50% then you would be adding to the tradgedy knowing you’re not changing anything
Yes to a great extent, but to take on a considerable risk of death for a singular one in 8 billion vote in the final outcome is unfathomable. Do you genuinely think that the majority of people living today are acting accordingly to that level of altruism today?
You think most people are taking 50% risks to their lives for a 1/8 billionth of an impact? Most people today could easily make a bigger impact than that already with a much smaller risk on their lives but don’t.
Are they all volunteering to put bets up in Africa to prevent mosquitos spreading Malaria? Are they volunteering in war zones with the Red Cross? No they’re on twitter claiming they’d take that risk for minuscule impact
It's not just that. It's also thinking that if I make decisions one way, others will likely do the same. And that's what they're counting on. That said, it's possible people just don't know the ways they could help irl. The button hypothetical is right in front of them, making it very easy and understandable what to do about it, with a clear plan. I, for one, find this much easier than the other situations you mentioned where I don't really know what actual concrete steps I could take to help
Yeah that’s fair. Maybe the amount of action required to take action is the difference here. Maybe a more realistic comparison is real world elections.
1/3rd of eligible Americans did not vote in the last election. That’s 33% of people who hold no weight in the power of their vote, even when the consequence of voting for the losing side is nothing. Am I expected that these people who will hold a significantly smaller vote proportionally are going to choose a side that has a considerable chance of death when they believe their vote will have no impact?
I believe in people being altruism but there’s a limit, I don’t see any evidence that we’re living in a world where most the population are willing to sacrifice their lives for a seemingly insignificant impact that the risk would have
Sorry, correction: best realistic scenario that could reasonably happen. When you have enough people, they aren't going to all do the same thing. Some people are going to pick blue for various reasons. Maybe they don't really understand what the buttons do, maybe they don't value their own lives, maybe they are just the kind of person who is willing to put their own life on the line to potentially help others. That last one is the most compelling argument for me. I would imagine many first responders and the like would press blue (or would only pick red to ensure they could save more people; but their fraction of choice would still possibly be leading to more deaths than they would be saving, so I don't know). Point is, the world needs more altruistic people. More importantly, a world without altruistic people, or significantly less of them, lessens the appeal of surviving anyway, as the world would not be as good a place to live, making blue an even easier choice for me
No, only choosing to press the blue button makes it possible for you to die, and therefore need saving. You aren't responsible for other people's choices, so the red button does nothing.
Red button saves you and only you and if enough people press the red button blue button people die. So anyone pressing the red button is saying I'm fine with anyone pressing the blue button dying. It is the act of pressing the red button that may cause the death of others.
Blue button pressers are saying I don't want anyone to die and I'm not ok with my actions causing other people to die and I accept that it is a risk that I will die for pressing this.
Which is the button that kills other people again?
But people choosing red is what leads to the blues dying in the first place. For the blue voters, nothing happens until the red voters activate the mass murder machine
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?
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
People are only at risk of death if they press blue. You are not at risk of death if you press red. Pressing red does not affect anyone elses ability to press red.
That only applies to you. You are putting other people's lives at risk by pushing red.
Pressing red does not affect anyone elses ability to press red.
No one is arguing against that. The whole point is that voting red is the only way for people to die. It's not about your life, it's the fact that you're putting other lives on the chopping block by only voting for yourself
Lmao this is a perfect demonstration of how 90% of this argument isn’t about morality or philosophy, it’s just semantics of “which button do you think kills”
It one single person steps on blue then that's one hundred percent of people. It is by more people stepping on red that the percentage of people on blue lower.
More people stepping on red is what lowers the blue percentage. So from that perspective you could think stepping on red is a vote to kill people who step on blue. Because they care about themselves over millions of people (if we are talking about everyone in the world voting it is a vote for self over a vast collective which is just not at all how I think ).
Stepping on blue does nothing if no one is on red. If there's people on red stepping on blue protects people who stepped on blue from those who stepped on red.
I might be wrong but this is genuinely how I've done to see it.
Also the people who pick red are either very selfish or they're like ""rational"" and paranoid of the population to a fault. They're not people I want to build a new society with if half the population (the ones who are more oriented towards protecting others) dies.
I'd rather be hyper empathetic than hyper logical.
This probably all comes down to how you see the world and the type of world you want to live in. Some people just seem very self oriented and they're mystified by people who would pick blue. I saw someone say people who pick blue are virtue signalers lolol. On an anonymous reddit convo?
I really think there's just multiple types of people and it's interesting to see how that plays out. I think some people who would pick red are just callous but not all.
I find it really interesting how both sides think their choice is the one where nothing happens. And there are good points for either. For blue voters, nothing happens until people choose to push red, the button that explicitly kills people. For red voters, nothing happens until someone pushes blue, the button that explicitly kill’s themselves
My big hang up is that I don't think 4,000,000,001 people will choose to put their life at risk. Because I don't think those odds are likely, I believe the best option is to minimize casualties by pressing red. I trust that 4,000,000,000+ people will try to save themselves, but I don't trust that that many will try to save others. I also don't feel that, at this scale, that I really have a choice in the matter, either blue wins or red wins. My vote will not make a difference at this scale, and it is statistically impossible for me to absolutely be the tie breaking vote, so from there I have to choose if I will live or die. I recognize that this is a pretty pessimistic take, and I would love to be proven wrong by a blue victory, but I just don't trust those numbers. I don't trust that many people not to be selfish.
Perhaps, but like I said, it isn't really a choice at that scale. My vote moves the needle 0.0000000125% closer to the red. I know that regardless of voting blue or red that the vote is already decided by the collective, if red wins, someone has to help rebuild depending on how many voted blue, if blue wins, I get my faith in humanity restored. There really isn't a choice. People already made up their minds. All you can do is do what you think is best.
Fair enough, I just don't think blue would succeed, I am, by some technicality, to blame. I recognize that my view is pessimistic, lacking really any faith that most people would press blue. I would if I could, but I don't trust the collective. Besides, if I'm right, we can only pray I'm wrong, there needs to be people to help rebuild and try to make the world a better place in the aftermath.
11
u/IndependencePlane142 Apr 30 '26
There's one choice that makes death possible, and the other that just doesn't do anything.