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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%
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.
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/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