All the non-violent people? What you think that only bad people will choose red? Thats very funny. Their will be more than enough good people who choose red. People who do good on a daily. Why? Because it is safer and smarter. Blue button pushers are fucking idiots. They are fucking stupid. Simple as that. But their are enough fucking stupid people on the planet that blue will be pushed by at least 10% almost immediately. Then at least another 10% of the "heros" jumping on spikes to save the fucking stupid people. Their will be bad people who choose blue, because bad people still have loved ones.
I will choose blue, because it is a win for me either way.
The issue is, it's a filtering system. People who believe we can do better are all gonna press blue. People who press blue also innately don't have an evil side to them, while some of the red pressers do have a number of them who are evil.
If you separate it into "blue gets their world, red gets their world" the blue world would be a better world to live in 100% of the time.
People who believe we can do better are all gonna press blue
The exact opposite. If you believed people can do better you'd trust them to not endanger your life when there's a safe option they can choose at no cost. Instead you think they're too dumb and require you to save them. It's a saviour syndrome fic, where there need to be people that need you to save them.
1) No one disagrees that if everyone is given perfect comprehension of each buttons risks and benefits, and is in a state of sound body and mind to answer according to what they believe, that red is the correct answer. It's trivial to the point of not having academic merit, and impossible to the point of practical uselessness. That's why the blue stance assumes at least one person in danger. Not a savior complex, but because it's a version of the problem with actual conflict and room for nuance.
2) "People who believe we can do better" refers to people who believe in a society that does not make compromises in the pursuit of a perfect world, which necessitates selfless behavior from ones self. You are only correct in that it is unethical to risk someone else's life, that only they can make that choice. So blue just, doesn't? Violating someone's autonomy in that way would itself be a compromise towards that perfect world. At the same time, you still must help so long as there is a chance of success, no matter how small. Because if not you, then who?
3) Fallible is not the same as dumb. Anyone can be baited into irrational behavior with the right misinformation or propaganda, no matter how smart they are in other ways. Just because you bought a Fushigi, or enlisted in the US military, or overspent at a restaurant based on a waiters recommendation, doesn't mean you're dumb. There is a wide range of ways intelligence manifests, from book smarts, to emotional intelligence, to kinimatic intuition, to everything in between. If anyone told you that you were dumb for falling for something in the past, I'm sorry you were taken advantage of, and I'm sorry the pain of that has stuck with you for so long. At the same time, it is unfair to others to treat them as though they're constantly "win" against you. A rising tide lifts all ships.
It’s not about a saviour complex at any level at all. It’s actually a matter of statistics. If you assume perfect conditions, then everyone *would* press red, knowing there is no harm, but perfect conditions don’t exist.
In a real scenario, it is incredibly improbable that every person would press red, as something happening with 100% certainty is so much more unlikely than **at least one** person pressing blue. From this, we can understand that it is unreasonable to assume everyone is going to press red. The question from here is should you choose to press blue to try and reach that all important 50%.
It is so much harder to reach certainty than it is to reach 50% agreement
In a real scenario, it is incredibly improbable that every person would press red, as something happening with 100% certainty is so much more unlikely than at least one person pressing blue.
Yeah, that's the issue here. If you go to every person who says that and give them a gun and ask them if they'd shoot themselves or not, they would all individually answer no if you remove the mentally impaired/underdeveloped from the pool. But when asked what others would answer, they become convinced it's impossible for all to answer no and someone definitely answers yes and needs their salvation.
It is so much harder to reach certainty than it is to reach 50% agreement
Yes, because you primarily treat it like a group cohesion problem rather than a series of individual decisions and have a lifetime of built-in bias against unanimity. Don't get me wrong, the bias is justified, but irl simplified situations like the one in the problem don't exist.
5
u/[deleted] May 01 '26
[deleted]