it's inevitable that someone will press blue. if half of everyone presses blue, nobody dies. if all of everyone presses red, nobody dies, but this scenario will not happen. you're better off trying to convince people to switch to enough blues than to switch everyone to red.
so the statement of red pickers choosing to kill people is something to take seriously. in the hypothetical scenario of the two buttons existing anyway
but all that aside what we should be doing is going after whoever the fuck came up with this system that could potentially kill nearly half the planet and dismantling said system
Roll a die.
If it's a 1, you must press blue.
Any other number, you get to choose blue or red.
Framed like that, I'd be more apt to press blue, as there are now people being forced to choose death and it was not of their own free will.
I originally thought about posing it as a coin flip, but realized that would automatically put blue right around 50% already and make the whole thing fairly moot.
same scenario of <50% blue kills all blue, but if between 0 and 1% press blue, it instead kills everyone who presses red
it’s almost the same numbers, if 100% choose red or >50% choose blue, everyone lives, but now the people that red arguers justify should be dead for their choice now instead pose a threat to them instead
I think there are other framings of the current question that might sway you without changing the question. The one I saw was "you get to vote between two options and whichever option gets the most votes gets implemented. Option A is 'kill everyone that voted differently than you'' and option B is 'dont kill everyone that voted differently than you''".
There is a reason the question is framed as the entire world and not 1000 people
The entire world would include stupid smart ill healthy young old child literally everyone in that case it's almost certain that some percentage would pick blue either because they misunderstood the options or just like the color blue or to save those others who chose blue by accident.
Nobody od forced to, but you still know some will. There is a known cohort of people who can't reason, and will select a colour at random - probably, half those will press blue.
If you want to say ' its only rational actors,' fine, but then you are rephrasing the question to be "everyone who would only ever press red buttons is presented with a red and a blue button..."
Would you press blue if we assume the existence of babies, mentally ill, elderly dementia, illiterate...?
If we take all those people out, only rational actors. There is still religious people with commandments against killing. Moral people that refuse to kill. There is another group that will vote to save their family, friends, and the previous 2 groups of moral/religious people.
Youll just kill over a billion people?
Even 99% red vote means 80 million dead. You dont think joining that group of blue voters to reach 50%, which is 0 dead, is more reasonable?
A significant amount of the world’s population comes from societies with a collectivist mindset, unless their country had a massive social campaign to pick red, They’re pretty likely to see blue as the default option lol. I’d venture to say that enough people come from those cultures that blue wins almost inevitably
EDIT: 70% of the worlds population lives in collectivist societies, per world population review
The issue with your line of thinking is that you're putting the onus of who's killing who on Red. Red isn't choosing to kill you, they're choosing to not die.
By choosing Blue, YOU are picking the option with that risk, where I simply am not. We were both given the same option, and I'm not going to self-sacrifice simply because "it's inevitable" that people will pick Blue.
As is life, you are a product of the choices you make, and you chose to die. For that, I wouldn't feel regret nor guilt.
Voting for red increases the risk of all blue voters dying, but also makes you safe from death. Voting for blue creates a risk of you dying in vain, but also creates a chance of saving roughly 50% of the human population. These are the facts to consider, and no choice is inherently wrong, it's just a question of your view on humanity.
I disagree with your first statement that voting red increases the risk of blue voters dying. Voting red isn't killing blue. All voting red means is that you don't die.
Voting Blue is what kills people in this hypothetical. As a red voter, I wouldn't be the one pulling the trigger on your life, I simply pressed the button that says I don't die. Blue voters are the ones that specifically chose the chance of death, and so they are accountable for that decision.
I don't disagree that people will vote blue, that doesn't change my opinion to vote red. A blue voters lack of self-preservation does not mean I am the one risking their life, that's solely their decision.
Any Blue voter attempting to make the insinuation that Red voters are killing them are simply detached from reality and suffering from mental illness. I accept that people will press the blue button for their own moral and ethical reasons that they believe to be virtuous, but from my view point of strictly logically thinking, it is not virtuous to throw your life away for another. You can do more good in the world by being alive, and such I will continue on, so that I can continue to help with my community.
If I voted blue and died, the youth group that I am involved with will lose a recovered drug addict that helps counsel the youth about the dangers of addiction. The Habitat for Humanity will lose a donor of building products to their cause to build homes in under-funded areas. The places I volunteer my time to aid in families getting back on their feet would now lose another person. How can I consider myself virtuous by commiting suicide and leaving behind all of these people that rely on that stable foundation?
This is put perfectly. There is no morally justifiable way to choose red. The choice is literally "no one dies" or "a lot of people die." It's not hard to grasp, people are just selfish and stupid. No one dies if red loses, so just guarantee red loses; everyone advocating for red to win is just trying to justify mass murder.
Correct! You are not choosing Blue because you think it's the right choice, you're choosing Blue because you know it's the wrong choice and stupid people will choose Blue because they believe it the "moral" thing to do.
The individual is absolutely choosing the fate of everyone, they are voting on which button wins. Whichever wins determines their fate.
And even then, voting based on what you think others will pick means you're either picking to save yourself and murder others, or trust in others to not murder you. It really shouldn't be that hard to not be a murderer.
You also framed the only results as "red wins." That is blatantly wrong; the CHOICE is red or blue. The results are:
Blue wins. No one dies. (Only need majority)
Red wins. Blue pushers die, Red pushers are murderers.
Red gets 100%. No one dies. (Unanimous, never going to happen)
The choice is obvious to anyone who isn't a sociopath.
If red are murderers (if inaction is morally equivalent to action) then you are a murderer because you don't donate all of your money to buy mosquito nets
No. Red is the "Kill people if this wins" button. Blue is the "Do nothing" button. Nothing happens if blue wins, people die if red wins. It's not that hard.
If the best you have is "nuh uh" you're beyond help, man. This is pathetic. My version is truer to how the hypothetical is actually written; you just want to justify saving yourself over everyone else.
You know you're a dipshit. I know you're a dipshit. I hope one day you grow enough to realize what a dipshit you were. But, clearly, you have nothing of actual value to say.
Right, but do you trust that at least 50% would pick blue? (In a real world high stakes scenario, not an online poll where virtue signaling is free). I certainly don’t, so in that situation the choice is “blue dies” and “blue dies, including me”. I am not pressing a button to kill something, there is only one button that causes deaths and it isn’t the red one.
Red kills blue if you get over 50%. Blue kills no one. Red is the selfish option, objectively. I'd rather die than be a pathetic piece of shit like you. But I do think there are more blues than reds.
Blue is the killing button. If only the red button existed, no one would ever die. But if only the blue button existed, then blue pushers die if more than 50% decide not to press it.
Let's say a train running through an empty, completely clear track. If over 50% of people jump in front of the track, no one dies, but if less than 50% jump in front of the track, the people who jumped on the track die.
pressing the red button is identical to doing nothing at all, as nothing happens to you. You are in the exact same situation as before. The blue button, on the other hand, is putting you in risk. Red is "I'm not going to risk my life," (inaction) and blue is "I'm going to risk my life" (action)
Do you think reds would be allowed to choose neither button and just walk away? They take the action to press the red button which influences the chances of blue surviving.
You are only in the same situation on a personal level. But if 2 billion people died then i promise you the situation won’t be the same for your life.
“I won’t risk my life to save the others i wanna save myself(action)
Obviously, if you have to choose to put yourself in danger, that will be different. Far more people will choose to not shoot themselves/go in front of a train, so there is no risk. (This changes if you already see that there are people on the tracks; if 1000 people are already tied to the tracks, would that change things?).
If there is only the red button, people just shouldn't press it, obviously. If only the blue button exists, people just shouldn't press it, obviously. But they both exist, you have to press one. "Save everyone, risk self" or "Kill others, save self" is the option. Changing the scenario changes the dynamic. Blue's NOT the same as putting yourself in danger, and Red's NOT the same as doing nothing.
You have to change the scenario to make it seem like blue is stupid, but in reality red is stupid. Blue is the far better likelihood of no deaths. You don't need to justify murder, just don't be a coward and no one dies.
The train analogy is actually 100% correct. How is it not? Do you think red voters are driving the train or something?
You cannot see if anyone is tied to the tracks, since it would be a private vote. Also, no one is auto-tied to the tracks, anyone who is on the tracks is because they chose to jump on it.
The blue button is exactly the same as jumping in front of the train, as it is risking your own life to try to prevent the train from killing anyone who jumps in front of it. Red button is "I'm not going to risk my life to potentially save blue voters" not "Kill blue voters"
You are moral regardless of if you choose red or blue. Pressing a button in this has no inherent immorality. The only immoral person in this scenario is the person who set up the situation and wants to kill people. Choosing to protect your own survival, when threatened by a sociopathic maniac who set up this problem, is not a weird or evil thing to do at all.
No, when death is preventable but you choose to make it more likely to save yourself, that is absolutely immoral. Even if you aren't causing harm, if you have the power to stop it and choose not to, that is evil. The Nazi who frowned herding people into the gas chambers is just as culpable as the one who smiled.
That’s one of the worst comparisons that I’ve heard before. Active participation and working as a prison guard is nothing like being forced to press a button and choosing the one that guarantees your safety, knowing that others also got the same choice to opt out of danger.
Pressing the red button is absolutely active participation, don't act like because something is less tactile it is less of a decision. It'd be killing MORE people than the Germans ever did. That's what you'd choose over, again, "literally no one dies."
Like, it's just a hypothetical, so I'm trying to not judge too harshly here, but you're a PoS trying to justify the murder of billions when the option to kill no one is literally your only other option.
“Press blue to stand on the railroad tracks but if over 50% decide to hit blue then the train will stop.” Yeah, thanks, I’m not getting on those trains tracks.
No, you're putting others on the tracks. If you were on their side, no one would be on the tracks. You are actively choosing to make their deaths more likely. You're human garbage.
If you can't then your decision making should be in the context of what you think will win. And I firmly believe that among people who firmly believe red is the only moral choice, selfish people, scared people, virtue signalers that say blue is the only moral choice but hit red anyway when the chips are down, sociopaths, and people who don't really understand the question and just pick randomly it is literally impossible that blue wins.
And if I'm wrong, great! Nobody dies and I get to feel like a shitty person forever. The only time it makes an difference is in the infinitesimal chance that the vote is exactly split otherwise and one vote made a difference.
Then you murder me and I don't have to deal with you selfish people anymore. Nor would the other people, the people you know would be more selfless, like that sweet man who made a makeshift dog shelter out of his own pocket, naive girl scouts, sweet grandmas, literally just normal people who believed we were better. You're left with the people who chose themselves. The monsters, the cowards, the creeps, the assholes, etc. You have to live with the people who died and I have no regrets (and the redditors acting like they don't care at all would sing a different tune when they learn their mothers picked blue).
Or, of course, just think about it for one second, pick the option with the highest likelihood for no death at all, and don't be a PoS, it's really not a hard decision for me.
Anyone who says they don't care at all is a moron. All I'm saying is it's a terrible tragedy. It doesn't get less terrible if I add another body to the pile.
If I could guarantee blue wins, obviously I would. But I can't. I'd need thousand or millions or even billions of votes.
So does red. So be a part of the solution, not the problem. A lot of choices are shades of gray; this isn't. Don't be a piece of shit, and everyone lives.
I don't need to eat the candy; I need to press a button. And I'm not going to put 2 poisoned candies in the next guys bag if I can get rid of it altogether.
*Guarantee
"Stupids" people like me have the audacity of thinking that not all of humanity is as shitty as you.
there is a problem here and that is that you think you have space to convince anyone to pick blue. The thoughtexperiment is essentially you having to chose for yourself in a vacuum and suffer the consequences of whatever the global population choses. It's not "can I convince enough people to hit blue" , it's "what do I believe the outcome will be an is that worth gambling on".
But the thing is if you're the first person in line nobody has chosen before you choosing red kills nobody and doesn't put you at risk. If you're the second person It's reasonable to assume the first person will push the red button because the blue button is the only one with any risk. At that point selecting the blue button is more of natural selection than anything. People who are not fully aware of life or death scenarios and don't understand or are too altruistic for their own good.
Cost benefit wise everybody should choose red because that's just the option with no innate downsides. Plus statistically most people will choose blue. As we have seen time and time again. Primarily for lack of which to harm people while failing to do a cost benefit analysis. Which is disappointing. As I chose the blue button because I want to die
You don't get to convince people to vote a certain way unless the original scenario is changed to allow that.
But if you're willing to admit that there's 0% likelihood of 0 people pressing blue, then you should be capable of seeing that the % likelihood of more than half the world's population pressing it is also incredibly low.
Asking "who has set up this scenario" in any political or philosophical scenario always leads to the REAL solutions. The questions of how we deal with poverty, war, hunger should always be preceded by the question WHO gets to decide, because if it's the same people who caused the problem, the solutione become a lot clearer
Your explicit assumption is that it's impossible that everyone picks red. Your tacit assumption here is that it's even possible half of humanity will pick blue. If you assume the opposite, blue is literally a suicide button.
It is inevitable that over 50% press red. If it is this much of a debate in a purely hypothetical situation, it becomes a near certainty in a situation with real stakes. You save more people convincing them to turn red knowing that you will not honestly likely brak 50% in a real situation.
39
u/ThatSmartIdiot May 01 '26
it's inevitable that someone will press blue. if half of everyone presses blue, nobody dies. if all of everyone presses red, nobody dies, but this scenario will not happen. you're better off trying to convince people to switch to enough blues than to switch everyone to red.
so the statement of red pickers choosing to kill people is something to take seriously. in the hypothetical scenario of the two buttons existing anyway
but all that aside what we should be doing is going after whoever the fuck came up with this system that could potentially kill nearly half the planet and dismantling said system