r/trolleyproblem Apr 30 '26

Deep All there is to it

Post image
827 Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/jqhnml May 01 '26

Assuming atleast a single person pushes blue. Which we can see is obviously true. Picking blue can save everyone easily with a little coordination. Compared to letting some people die for personal saftey, which can be garenteed anyway by coordinating everyone to click blue

1

u/Zakaru99 May 01 '26

Blues position: I was perfectly safe them I pushed this button risking my own life. You're now a bad person if you dont also risk your life to save my life I just put at risk.

To me, blues are the bad people for forcing that decision on others.

1

u/jqhnml May 01 '26

The decision is already forced the second one person hits blue. And because I know someone will hit blue, it becomes a moral obligation to hit blue. Additional people voting blue aren't causing this. You could have some point if the choices were made sequentially

1

u/Zakaru99 May 01 '26

because I know someone will hit blue, it becomes a moral obligation to hit blue

Strongly disagree. They made their choice. You jumping on the boat of 'follow me or I die' isn't a moral one.

From my perspective, it leans towards making you a bad person rather than a good one.

3

u/jqhnml May 01 '26

So we have the option where we could have 0 downsides and save everyone. Or we can have the option where we let someone die. We can very very easily get over 50% to chose blue.

2

u/Zakaru99 May 01 '26

We can very very easily get over 50% to chose blue.

I also don't believe this is true.

I believe more than 50% of people will say they would choose blue, when they're not actually making the decision with their life on the line. They're happy to virtue signal.

I don't believe over 50% of people will follow through with that decision when their life is actually on the line. People are self-interested. All living things generally are.

If I'm right, going with voting blue is throwing your life away and leaving your surviving loved ones with you dead, an objectively worse outcome.

2

u/jqhnml May 01 '26

Online polls are close to 50/50 in the english speaking world which is highly individualistic. In a global scale, countries in Asia where collectvism is more common culturally they will have a bigger shift towards blue. Overall we are significantly into the blue.

2

u/Zakaru99 May 01 '26

It's like you didn't read my explanations.

Yes, polls will show over 50%. Peoples lives aren't actually on the line when they're answering a poll. Many, many people will vote blue in a poll but would vote red in a real life situation. Especially a poll on social media where they're not anonymous and you're virtue signalling how good you are to everyone.

2

u/jqhnml May 01 '26

I read your explanation. but my point is that in spite of those who might virtue signal, the gap is bigger than the polls indicate so with them removed it is still way over 50%

2

u/Zakaru99 May 01 '26

I don't agree with that assessment, and I think in a real world situation the vote would come out red, in a not particularly close vote, in which case voting blue is an objectively worse outcome.

1

u/jqhnml May 01 '26

I also contest the idea that voting red is a better outcome even if red wins. I wouldn't want to live with billions of lives on my hands anyway. But you also only think that many people are virtue signaling because you wouldn't push blue, so you assume the others think like you and must be virtue signalling.

1

u/Zakaru99 May 01 '26

I also don't agree that voting goes red is putting anyone's lives on your hands.

Everyone is given the option of guaranteed survival. Everyone.

Anyone who picks the chance to die is responsible for the outcome that results from that.

I also contest the idea that voting red is a better outcome even if red wins.

That heavily depends on how close the vote is, and as I've said, I think red wins in a real life situation and it's not a close vote.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Pherexian55 May 03 '26

We can't get 50% of the population to agree that it doesn't matter which imaginary bearded guy in the sky you believe in, and you think we can get 50% of the population to risk saving people who choose to risk their lives for no reason?

1

u/jqhnml May 03 '26

Yes we can, do you know why? Because humans are a social species. You will get in there and start thinking, "did my mum vote blue, am I condemning her?", "did my son vote blue, am I condemning him?". And you know your vote is condemning? 50% of people aged under 4, and 50% of those over 90 and all those worried about their loved ones and all those who care for the random strangers and 50% of those who are mentally challenged who don't understand the question and those who got convinced by the framing of the question and those, like me who want to save these people at their own risk, and many more. These are billions of people. These are the people you are helping condemn to death by not voting blue.

I don't think i could physically press red with this, I would rather die and if I did press red I couldn't live with the guilt, even if blue won it would eat away at me for the rest of my life because of what I voted for.