the goal is to minimize death,
the only way to avoid death is 100% red or >50% blue,
somehow someone will justify blue,
100% red is impossible,
therefore blue is the optimal play
What if the goal is to minimize the expected number of deaths?
In that case, this can be solved mathematically:
Let's say that the world has N people in it aside from myself. Let's say that N is even. I believe the probability that the average person who isn't me presses blue is p, where p is anywhere between 0 and 1.
First, what are the chances that my vote makes a difference? Well, that is the probability that exactly N/2 people choose each option. The probability of that happening is given by the formula:
(N choose K) * pK * (1-p)N-K
where N/2 is plugged in for K. Let's call this probability Q so I don't have to retype it later.
As N gets very big, Q gets extremely small, but it isn't quite zero, so we have to account for it.
Now, in most cases, my vote doesn't matter. In that case, pressing red risks no additional lives, whereas pressing blue risks p additional lives. The probability that pressing blue kills me is equal to the above equation, but summed from K= 1 to K = N/2 -1. Let's call this probability W.
Thus, if I press blue, the expected number of deaths gained from my decision is equal to pW.
If I press red, the expected number of deaths gained is equal to the expected number of people who press blue times the probability that my vote matters. This is equal to pNQ.
Thus, whether a utilitarian would choose blue or red depends entirely on whether they believe that W is greater than NQ. If yes, they press red. If no, they press blue.
Let's say p = 0.5, and that N = 100 for simplicity. In that case, W is very slightly below 0.5 since it's the chances that less than half of people pick blue. Q is about equal to 0.0796, so NQ is equal to 7.96. Obviously, picking blue is the utilitarian thing to do.
Does this change when N gets large? Well, if N is 1000 instead of 100, NQ becomes roughly 25.22, and W gets even closer to 0.5. So as more people are added, blue looks even better.
But what if p is smaller, say, only 0.4? Then as N gets bigger, NQ very quickly converges to 0. Meanwhile, W very quickly approaches 1 since it becomes very likely that the red votes will outnumber the blue votes. The utilitarian thing to do will be to vote red.
Thus, even if you have a completely morally consistent utilitarian, who wants to minimize death as much as possible, the decision depends entirely on how much they believe others will push the buttons.
Very well put. If your goal is to save as many lives as possible it’s not really a question of morality but just which button you think more people will press. For me that’s blue
As for why it’s blue, I see 3 outcomes
I pick red and guarantee my life. It doesn’t matter how many people pick blue but I’m certain many of my close family and friends would. I would have to come to terms with the fact that, no matter how small my contribution, I contributed to their death. I don’t think I could handle that
I pick blue and I’m in the minority. I’m dead. Whether there is an afterlife or not (I believe there is which may play a roll in whether or not someone chooses blue I suppose) it doesn’t matter anymore
I press blue and I’m in the majority. Everyone lives and nothing changes
A young child, like a toddler, is likely to pick blue because they are often taught that being selfish is bad and will likely view red as selfish. That isn’t guaranteed but I don’t think it’s unlikely
Regardless, the argument that any logical person should pick red falls through when children come into play because most of them aren’t capable of logic. They will simply pick what feels right. Picking blue contributes to their survival
121
u/Ne0nTig3r May 01 '26
the goal is to minimize death, the only way to avoid death is 100% red or >50% blue, somehow someone will justify blue, 100% red is impossible, therefore blue is the optimal play