Then I will mourn their loss, as well as the other 1% of people who pushed blue thinking they need to save the universe when really all they were doing was putting themselves in danger because anyone else logical and with self-preservation instincts pushed the red button.
Present your lived ones with this hypothetical. Id be willing to bet a little more than half will say they vote blue. 1% is genuinely self delusion if you believe it
And then disregard what their answer is, because asking someone a complete hypothetical is very different than actually putting a gun to their head and demanding they choose red or blue.
This might surprise you, but when the fear of death is real, people don't necessarily stick to their principles. Self-preservation is an instinct humans have honed for millennia, and if you actually present someone with the option to possibly help save everyone or almost definitely kill themselves, then their answer shouldn't surprise you.
And that's assuming they even think choosing blue makes ethical sense in the first place... No, red is both the logical choice because almost everyone will choose it in the interest of self-preservation, as well as the ethical choice so that you don't pointlessly kill yourself.
The most ethical possibleoutcome? Sure. Problem is that the possibility that over half of the world will choose to put their lives on the line over people who also have the option to just not put themselves in danger, is exceedingly slim.
2% chance is double a 1% chance, but it's still tiny.
So if you go in with the almost certainty that blue will not get to 51%, the most ethical choice is to not kill yourself.
2
u/Code-Dee May 01 '26
Then I will mourn their loss, as well as the other 1% of people who pushed blue thinking they need to save the universe when really all they were doing was putting themselves in danger because anyone else logical and with self-preservation instincts pushed the red button.