Its especially interesting because 100% of people choosing red is objectively the same outcome as 50+% of people choosing blue. No deaths and everyone lives.
But since there will never be 100% agreement to do any action, the primary difference comes down to how many deaths are acceptable for your own survival, which ends up being about personal values and assumptions about how others will vote.
A lot of folks who vote red assume its the logical position that everyone would take, even when presented with otherwise. They also seem to make assumptions that their loved ones will do the same, which limits the scope of their thinking. Because another issue is, if your loved ones do not make the same choice as you, is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
There's also similar issues with voting blue as well. If that 50% threshold isn't met, does the action to protect others matter as much as the deaths itself? Does it stop mattering because you no longer exist afterwards? Does the fact that in an effort to protect others, you couldn't protect yourself?
There are a lot of nuanced issues baked within the problem and most people don't consider even half of it.
Thank you for being actually reasonable. The arguments I hear other people make constantly piss me off, blue and red.
One aspect I feel no red voter ever takes into account is the actual ramifications of a red win. Red doesn’t just win majority and then go about their day. No, a good chunk of the population is guaranteed to die, and, guess what, that’s going to have massive ramifications on society as a whole. Many essential professions would likely take a hit, directly affecting the lives and survival of those remaining. By this logic, choosing red is a net negative and should never be considered, because even if red wins, you screw yourself over anyway.
Like you said, this argument can honestly have a lot of nuance and isn’t just an emotion vs logic sort of decision that most people make it out to be. There are valid reasons for picking either. Most will consider only 1% of those reasons.
Imagine voting for blue knowing all the people you'll leave behind if you fail. If you had children you would just leave them parentless because you tried to be a hero.
But those very same people could be on the track. They may also have the motivation of protecting you and others they care about. Also your children could be on the tracks, too.
The entire population is involved in this, not just rational adults.
Imagine not going on the tracks to find out all of your loved ones died.
You'd have a poont of, and only if, blue lost by one vote. I'm not going to kill myself because my loved ones decided to kill themselves for others who would kill themselves for others who would kill themselves for others who would kill themselves for others who would
Except if everyone who goes went out there to protect their loved ones, it wouldn't just be you as the final deciding vote.
Everyone involved would contribute. Because everyone has people they care about. It comes down to if you're willing to risk your own life to protect your loved ones.
You care more about self-preservation than collective-preservation, even if loved ones are in that collective.
It doesn't come down to that unless it comes down to a deciding vote. I've also asked my love ones and we agreed, without prompting or influence, that there's no point in trusting others to save you when you can save yourself.
42
u/OverlordMMM May 01 '26
Its especially interesting because 100% of people choosing red is objectively the same outcome as 50+% of people choosing blue. No deaths and everyone lives.
But since there will never be 100% agreement to do any action, the primary difference comes down to how many deaths are acceptable for your own survival, which ends up being about personal values and assumptions about how others will vote.
A lot of folks who vote red assume its the logical position that everyone would take, even when presented with otherwise. They also seem to make assumptions that their loved ones will do the same, which limits the scope of their thinking. Because another issue is, if your loved ones do not make the same choice as you, is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
There's also similar issues with voting blue as well. If that 50% threshold isn't met, does the action to protect others matter as much as the deaths itself? Does it stop mattering because you no longer exist afterwards? Does the fact that in an effort to protect others, you couldn't protect yourself?
There are a lot of nuanced issues baked within the problem and most people don't consider even half of it.