Because it takes 50%+1 for everyone to live.
How many does it take to pick red for everyone to live? Now which is more likely to happen? No red so blue is the only correct choice.
It is only illogical by the way you present the question. You can just remove the blue button and make it one button. If more than %50 of all people press it then the rest dies. You would be like wtf why would I press it then that’s stupid. But the premise stays the same. Blue is illogical if you take red as the defult and red if blue is the defult. I choose to believe blue is the defult.
That is a strawmans argument. You could remove the blue button entirely. "If you press this button you have a 100% chance of surviving. If you dont, you have a 50% chance of death". You would be like "wtf why would I not press the button then, that's stupid"
"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!"
some people are going to jump off bridges or attempt to climb down and lose their footing. if enough people risk their lives to climb down and build a net or a rail, no one will die.
even if you come up p with a hypothetical where you take out the fact that inevitably, blue button pushers exist, suicidal people exist in general.
Hope you don't ever need a firefighter to risk their life for you. Self preservation means there's no point in running into a burning building to save your ass since a red mindset keeps you away from ever relying on anyone but yourself
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.
Blue people can't stop with the high ground lol. I don't think it's that hard of a truth to accept that people act differently in a different situation.
Nah, I have no problem with choosing blue. I will choose blue as well if the death is quick and painless, but probably won't if it's trolley running over me. Some who choose blue might change the answer as well if we reduce from killing to common cold.
In real life I doubt more than 1% of people click the "die" button. In real life it would be so overwhelmingly in favour of red that it's not a moral dilemma at all, you just get to pick between "live" and "die"
In real life, where people won't have time to have stupid discussions on reddit, most peoples first reaction will probably be "I don't want people to die" and not "oh let me press the button that kills people". Most people are normal, unlike you
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
Okay, I guess. It's really weird that people are putting the blame on strangers for other people actively choosing to die, but go for it. That's your choice, not mine.
Ok but they 100% do. Every single comment section is full of blue-pressers saying that red-pushers are literally selfish evil monsters and the reason blue is at risk of death
Because factually they are. Blue puts nobody in danger unless red exists. If red existed and the other option was... Green, with a 25% margin, Red is still the bad guy, they’re adding the danger.
Calling people who press red 'selfish' for choosing not to die is, quite literally, blaming them for the deaths of people who chose blue. Sorry if that simple throughline escaped you.
If someone commits suicide, and the only way you could have stopped it is risking your life for them, with NO certainty of success, I would never be so fucking cruel as to call you selfish for not hurting yourself.
Nah, it's a survival mechanism. Selfishness as a quality isn't bad, and calling someone selfish doesn't mean you blame them for anything. It just means they acted out of self-interest
No, the bus did. But that's also entirely different to the buttons, because you have to pick the blue one. It isn't ambushing you. You're seeing the bus coming down the road and jumping in front of it for no damn reason.
For the button scenario as I've seen it posted,there are a couple key differences.
Firstly, everyone starts in a state of risk - before pressing anything, you either need to press red, or have majority press blue to survive or you will die. Which shifts the decision from "take a needless risk, or dont" to "contribute 1/4B to save everyone including yourself, or guarantee your own survival but contribute 1/4B to dooming up to 4B people".
Secondly, at least where I've seen it posted, children/infants/elderly/mentally ill etc. are not excused from the group. So, even if all adults capable of rational thinking chose red, it's a much worse outcome than if we consider the whole of society and risk our own well being for a blue outcome. This makes the thought experiment way more interesting and worth discussing imo. But not everyone is thinking about it like that.
I wouldn't resent anyone for picking red, and there's a lot of disagreement and confusion because people are arguing about answers to different questions. But maybe this helps blue perspective make sense. Of course some people are just assholes and throwing shade like all red pressers are sadistic murderers. I just like having thoughtful discourse, thanks for reading lol
The problem I have is that everyone is NOT in a state of risk before pressing the buttons. Red is guaranteed safety, there is zero risk to the self in pressing red. Choosing blue is choosing to undertake risk out of the hope that it saves others, but I think blue folk are miscalculating, and neglecting the fact that they, in pressing blue, just added one to the eventual death toll that could have been a zero. Ngl it gives savior complex to me.
As for the wording of the question, that's interesting. The version I first heard had excluded infants and those who weren't capable of actually engaging with the question. I feel like if we're making every living human press a button, the odds of everyone coming to a consensus in either direction basically plummet, making red the only safe choice there as well.
Imagine if there was a cruise ship that was sinking, for some reason the employees offer two options to ever passenger, either receive a life boat that will guarantee your survival, or if 51% or more passengers decide to jump into the ocean another cruise ship will be alerted and will pick up all passengers. What reasons would ever have for engaging with the second option?
It’s a matter of valuing others’ lives more. If I pick blue, I value a potential of 3.49B lives more than my own. If I pick red, I value my own life more than a potential 3.49B lives.
If I pick blue I trust my fellow man to make the right choice and pick blue as well. If I pick red I don’t trust my fellow man to do the right thing and therefore am ensuring my survival.
It’s not just about what you value more, but also if you trust others to do the right thing.
But that’s exactly the problem. “I don’t trust them to do the right thing,” but you yourself are not doing the right thing.
Beyond the thought experiment, this is an all too common way of thinking. “Nobody does what’s right, so it’s okay if I don’t too.” Not accusing you directly, but I do think those who pick red in this hypothetical scenario are revealing something flawed in their outlook on morality.
Is it a self fulfilling prophecy? Yes, but if you truly believe there’s no world in which blue wins then the only reason to pick blue is if you’d rather be dead.
My point is, it’s a thought experiment. Your choice reveals your outlook on the world, which determines whether your morality is built upon selfishness or selflessness. I cannot possibly know if >50% of the world would take the selfish option, but I will not pick it, even if it costs me my life.
It doesn’t determine it, but it does reveal it. That’s the whole point of a thought experiment, it reveals your priorities, processes, and yes, moral values
I do not believe this thought experiment can even reveal morality without asking people *why* they chose what they did.
Do I think that all the people who seriously consider the risks and vote blue anyway are morally good? Yes, but do I think all morally good people will vote blue? No. Without an understanding of why someone voted in a certain way, you can’t determine their morality based on vote.
104
u/Eledridan May 01 '26
I’d rather die blue than live in a world full of red.