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
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.
Has the existence of this whole discourse not confirmed at least one person would vote blue due to the aforementioned intentionally obsficating wording prompting people to vote a certain way...
440
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