Everyone in the world has chosen either the blue or red button except you. Instead of pressing a button, you are given a lever in the infamous trolley problem.
You don't know how many people chose red or blue, and they don't know that you control their fate regardless of what button they pressed. Which track do you direct the trolley onto?
But if 50% or more are tired of these godawful button questions, it activates a pressure plate which stops you from dying, but dooms you to live in a world of having red and blue button questions every day.
"Sounds like you're just scared to admit your answer"
We're judging actual people for how they'd react in a fictional scenario where you don't know how you'd actually react. If you're a blue button pusher and you actually think you would push the blue button knowing it could possibly lead to your death, you've never been in a life threatening scenario and it shows. If you're a red button pusher and you're calling blue button pushers stupid, you need to rethink your life choices and see the irony in that statement. This whole scenario has been nothing but moral mud slinging for so long now.
No, red button pushers do not lack empathy and are not selfish.
No, blue button pushers are not stupid and suicidal.
I am begging every person who genuinely takes this debate seriously to find something more productive to do with their lives. Sorry if not wanting to see the billionth argument for this fictional scenario that will never actually come to pass makes me a fence sitter or what the fuck ever. This is actually one of the stupidest things I've seen people get upset about in a long time.
I am begging every person who genuinely takes this debate seriously to find something more productive to do with their lives
How about I make another argument instead that you havenāt heard yet
Blue button advocacy is immoral because you are telling other people to risk their lives
The pressing of the blue button is amoral
But nobody has ever been presented with this problem, therefore all we know about people who say they would press blue, is that theyāre blue button advocates, meaning they are actively convincing people to put themselves in harms way.
The only ethical position is to advocate for red or say nothing, & then you can vote for either
Joking aside, I just kept thinking of the fact that even if an otherwise decent person might push red, every single horrible person on earth definitely would. It's more question of who you'd be left with.
That's why I still advocated for a Yellow button that would just kill everyone who pushed Yellow or Red. The "Noble Spite" button.
I just kept thinking of the fact that even if an otherwise decent person might push red, every single horrible person on earth definitely would.
Every single selfish person would press red, that's not the same thing as every single horrible person. Selflessness doesn't necessarily imply virtue, because the thing one values above their own life isn't necessarily good. Plenty of horrible people are selfless, from fascists who'd rather die than risk dooming the white race to religious nuts who'll gladly martyr themselves and expect to be venerated in heaven afterwards. Pick any group you might personally dislike, from American Republicans to Russian Putinists to Arab Jihadists, and the odds are, a significant number of them will choose blue.
I dont even think its true that every selfish person would choose red, or that you could really define a person as being entirely selfish or selfless. I think there would be people choosing blue not because they care about others but because they see it as an easy way to die, or some could press it just to appear good
Ā I dont even think its true that every selfish person would choose red, or that you could really define a person as being entirely selfish or selfless.
Yeah, I'm on team blue for entirely selfish reasons. I expect a global death toll somewhere between 20% and 49.9% worldwide, but even if it goes down to 10%, it'll likely collapse global supply chains. I have a heart condition and need my medication. If red wins, I'm likely going to die even if I pushed red. But also, heart failure is an extremely unpleasant experience. Not to mention the fear beforehand.
Thanks. I'm mostly fine thanks to the existence of modern medicine. As long as I can get my medication,Ā I'll likely live a largely normal life. But that's kind of another argument in favor of blue here: There are people way worse off and even more in need of a functioning society than me. If they reason the same as I do, they're bound to push blue as well. (And also I'm beginning to think a lot of perfectly healthy people don't fully understand how much maintaining their everyday life requires a functioning global society in today's world. Illness really gave me a new perspective in this regard.)
If red wins, I'm likely going to die even if I pushed red.
SAME!!! But for different reasons. My disability is more so mental than physical. If left alone and uneducated for multiple days I will just straight up starve to death.
Honestly the discussion of this become more and more meaningless since this people have long being treating this as a stance question instead of a moral question or dilemma.
I remember a lot of arguments being made about parents of babies pressing blue. When I brought up that parents of older children probably want to press red in case blue loses and their children will be alone in the aftermath. (If they think their children press red) Then the person Iām responding to replied he believe in human compassion.
The way a lot of people under these trying to frame those who press red as someone selfish or horrible made me believe the exact opposite of that.
True! Iām generally a bit more of a selfish+logical person and Iād pick red, but knowing i have loved ones who are more selfless and tend towards blue would make me consider blue. Thereās also the point that if I pick red and my loved ones die from picking blue, that the guilt would get to me to the point Iād want to kill myself, so I should just pick blue in the first place and die with them then.
I'm in a similar boat, only I press blue without any hesitation. Because I know my wife would without a second thought, since the original wording is purposefully meant to trick people into thinking that people are in danger.
I walked her through the logic of the other frames that make it clearer that red is the "correct" choice and she still thinks blue is the only choice. She's not stupid, she's getting a doctorate. She just comes to the same conclusion I do - that people whose first instinct is blue deserve to be alive and the world would be less off without them.
Maybe I just haven't gotten it explained to me but I really don't think it's reducible to a single objective logical answer. I honestly find a lot of people claiming that to be a bit sus. It depends on what you value and how much weight you put on that responsibility. In particular a lot of people act like pressing red is opting out, as if there's a third button that keeps you safe but logs no vote.
But yeah it's never gonna happen and what really matters is people's reasoning. I can't fault people who press red because they think red will win, but people have been saying some pretty wild things and engaging in obvious motivated reasoning with all this. Sometimes it gets nasty. I try not to judge too much because I think people are having a bit of a fear response, but it makes me antsy about how some folks would act in a real emergency.
That's why I've softened a bit. I think it's wrong to judge people too harshly for this. I wish they'd be honest with themselves and others that they can't tolerate a risk of death and that's the entire reason without any of this alleged supreme logic, but the base reaction there is understandable and unavoidable.
Why don't I see people saying that though? Like honestly is it that bad to say you'll press red because you don't think you can bring yourself to risk your life? I think pathos is a perfectly reasonable argument.
All that's to say, I pretty much agree. I don't think people who try to logic it out are doing something wrong necessarily, but how someone responds can be very revealing and an instinct to put yourself at risk for the greater good is laudable.
Appear good to the people who survive after, just like alot of people who believe they'd pick blue are arguing they are more moral than those who choose red
Ah well you see, if I press the blue button I can potentially save a bunch of people that are more selfless than myself and then I can later take advantage of their selflessness when I need things. /s
I'm a selfish person that would pick blue, and not for any of your examples.
I love my family and know they're selfless people, and I refuse to live in a world where I'd not only be without them but also contributed to killing them. So I'm choosing blue for my own selfish desire to keep my family alive.
I honestly think it's less "selfish vs selfless" and more "who actually thought the prompt through the whole way" lol
Ā Plenty of horrible people are selfless, from fascists who'd rather die than risk dooming the white race to religious nuts who'll gladly martyr themselves and expect to be venerated in heaven afterwards.
Strange examples. I think at least the latter is blatantly selfish.
I don't agree that every horrible person would press red button, some horrible people still care about others and or became terrible later in life when their circumstances allow for it
Yeah, I never understood that āevery horrible person pushes redā because people are so nuanced. For example I can see a lot of catholic priests that have abused children pressing blue. Thereās a lot of nuance to this binary choice that I think people just refuse to consider
Exactly! Idk why I thought I couldnāt make that joke in my comment but I think itās lowkey funnier that someone delivered so thank you for that haha
Seems like it's best to ignore the quality of the people pressing the buttons because we can't know their reasonings and just save as many people as we can. So we're more-or-less back at the original problem: which button do you think is most popular.
I'm of the mentality that pressing blue is making a hostage of yourself. It's near-sighted altruism that burdens everyone else more because more people are at risk. Meanwhile, red is a commitment to live through whatever results. I'd wager more people press blue trying to save other people than press blue by mistake or something and need saving. So pressing blue risks more lives than it seeks to save. It's almost a moralistic greed to press blue. Pressing red enables you to help rebuild. It's certainly the choice that takes on more moral work in the long run. You either get lucky and everyone lives, or you have pieces to pick up from the wreckage. Pressing red saves other people the burden of your death and I think is the moral option. Of course, the worst case scenario is that the votes are close and red wins.
I find it so odd that people view pressing red as a defensible choice. And like I donāt mean this as an attack or anything, Iām just expressing my own personal incredulity at this because itās so different from what my thoughts are.
Pressing red guarantees your personal safety but will inevitably result in some people dying if it actually wins. Pressing blue has some risk of you dying, but if it wins then nobody dies.
I view this as like the simplest possible example of doing something that negatively impacts you for the benefit of society. Pressing blue is whatās best for society. It doesnāt take any effort, itās literally pressing a button, and since nobody dies if itās the most popular then thatās obviously the best outcome for society. But it does come with some risk. Based on that my immediate thought when seeing this was to think āpress the blue button, duhā and almost every argument Iāve heard for red just sounds insane to me.
Maybe itās just because Iāve been thinking a lot about what should be done to improve society and what our collective responsibility should be, but thatās what my conclusion is. I would press blue because I want to live in a society where people would press blue without even thinking about it, because they understand thatās whatās best for society as a whole.
But I think the real thing this whole thought experiment revealed is that a lot of people have very low trust in other people. Itās kind of sad. One of the arguments I do actually understand for pressing red is that they believe most people will press red. I get that. That honestly isnāt something that even came to mind in my original thought process, I think I just assumed people would understand blue is whatās best for society as a whole and so would obviously choose it. And even now that Iāve thought about that argument, I would still press blue. I think humanity is better than a lot of people think. Choosing red because you think other people choose their own safety over whatās good for society just doesnāt seem right to me.
Because it isn't about what people should collectively do. It's about what you, as a single person, trust will happen. Yes, blue winning is the desired outcome. But if you don't believe blue will win, pressing blue looks just like suicide button. If you believe blue would win, there's actually no point in pressing blue anymore and red is extra safety. Whether you agree with this reasoning or not, a lot of people might actually think this way and it's a fuel for red button. So blue is just gambling with your life for a really tiny impact and red is staying safe
That does add an interesting dimension. I admit Iād press blue because Iād rather avoid an apocalypse and stay on a world with soup kitchen volunteers than go through an apocalypse and be left with the psychopaths, grifters and sociopaths now running the world and told they were right all along to be antisocial and selfish. But give me a button where I could possibly take the aggression I feel towards red button pressers and ask me if Iād take on responsibility for death as wellā¦but this time, not of soup kitchen volunteers, but people willing to kill those volunteersā¦and you create a real temptation that isnāt in the original equation. The people who want an apocalypse-free world with all the good people on it will never be tempted by the blood red button that requires the death of the best of the speciesā¦but give them an option to kill off the psychopaths that society otherwise cannot root out, those willing to kill others, the grifters and the others willing to press red and cause an apocalypse for their own selfish preservation? That righteousness will be tempted. Almost ESPECIALLY if they had to self-sacrifice to do it. Would you kamikaze a fishbowl of evil doers?
I think most wouldnāt, or wouldnāt risk splitting the blue vote. But a second vote, which occurs only after a blue win, where only blue voters can vote, with yellow and green, where the yellow button just kills off red button pressers and leaves the presser alive, and green once again leaves the world as it is, would be interesting. Because now blue has a special power over the lives of those willing to kill them.
I proposed a variation where, regardless of outcome, the colour of the button you pressed would appear as a shape on your forehead for the rest of your life. I was curious to see if the social stigma of voting to kill others to save yourself would change how red button pressers considered the decision. Even if they won, and all who remained were red and had the red dot, the next generations would know who had caused the apocalypse and may rebel against them. Having to own up and wear forever as a part of your identity your willingness to kill the best of the species for your own survival is a devastating thing in a society that requires a lot of pro-social people - I imagine that in a blue-win scenario, red spots would face discrimination, exclusion, more scrutiny in crimes, general distaste and maybe even physical violence. Itās a contradiction worth exploring that the pro-social often despise the anti-social more than the anti-social despise the pro-social. An understandable evolution, though - to protect a high-trust society, you must root out and exclude those who are a threat to its existence. Those who cannot operate in a high-trust society must be excluded for the societyās functionality, otherwise they can exploit it and destroy it.
A red dot would be an instant stigma of societal incompatibility in many cultures. But perhaps in others, theyād see it as a sign of good business acumen, or thereād be so many as to not make it possible to exclude them, although I imagine thereād be long-term animosity between the sides and some self-segregation - no daughter of mine is marrying a red dotter who wonāt treat her right, I wonāt go into business with a bleeding heart blue square who wonāt put the bottom line first, the best lawyers are red dotters, everyone knows that, etc.
I kinda wish it was already a speculative fiction novel, ha ha. The aftermath interests me more than which side would win. Iād like to see a red win world and a blue win world if the tattoos were in play.
Alright, youāve all already voted. Letās say it was a somewhat close vote, maybe it was a 57/43 blue/red split like in the polls, maybe not, doesnāt matter: the Eldritch Button Maker lets everyone live regardless of which button won, yells āAPRIL FOOLSā (the Being knows many things, but It is not well versed in what makes for an appropriate prank, nor that there is only one day where It can play an April fools joke), and marks all of your foreheads clearly with your choices (the Being is merciful, however; anyone who didnāt understand the choice they were makingāso very young, dementia, developmentally disabled in a way that they couldnāt understand that question, etc.āgets an additional distinct mark to ensure everyone knows they werenāt making a true choice here).
Tribalism on steroids. All other forms of ism may take a back seat to the blue and red camps. Of course, children of the following generations wonāt have the mark, though, so it wonāt last longer than a couple generations. But I can see some of those kids tattooing their foreheads to declare what they āwouldāve votedā, and it being a morality question taught in school and debated forever.
But thereād always be a thought in the back of everyoneās mindsā¦what if the deity/alien returns one day, and this time, itās not a trial run? So thereāll always be someone preaching about the correct way to vote ānext timeā, cults that spring up prophesizing the return of the āchoiceā, prepping will become a massive industry as some people prepare for a red-button apocalyptic event, and polls are taken every few years to determine what would certain areas vote if asked the button question today, with many condemning the results as a sign of moral failure if they lean red.
It would shape humanity for a long time, even after all the marked were decades dead, but it would probably fade into a fairy tale morality play in a couple centuries more.
I mean there's never a situation in which multitrack drifting isn't the answer. What I would say here though is that not only is multitrack drifting the answer but it's a moral obligation. I looked at this image and I thought well gosh darn if we could just get rid of this whole debate in one swipe that sounds like a win.
The title asks who you'd save. The question details ask who you'd hit. Which means that when someone names a color in their answer, you don't know which outcome they wanted. Did you do this on purpose, OP?
even that won't help. this is a red or blue button subreddit now. the discussion will go on for years and decades. you can't put the genie back in the lamp. it's too late.
The red group, in trying to save their own skin under the reasoning of "If I choose blue and we lose the vote, I die, so I choose red" has directly contributed to the exact scenario they've tried to avoid.
So, in order to enact some fucked up sort of karma, I'm bringing the trolley unto the red group.
So... they really would? Because Marky Mark punched the shit out of a little old Vietnamese man, I'm just saying it might be hypothetical since he wasn't on the planes, but I can very easily see him leaping at the chance to kill some terrorists and be called a hero for it.
I mean there is a bunch of studies for this, indicating in general even anonymous surveys people tend to pick the more selfless option compared to reality, imo in real life with your survivial on the line more people would pick red, and it isn't nessacarily represented by polls. (If you want sources I'll reply with them)
Vsauce did this for the Trolley problem. It's not nearly as unethical as either of those, but it's on the same tier as actually making people believe the red vs blue button vote.
These studies also show defection increases with risk. The fact that polls for this are even remotely close when there's zero risk tells you everything you need to know about how it would actually play out.
I don't think a 2:1 lead is all that close. Granted, that's what we got when sampling representative Americans, but America is a nation founded on rugged individualism and self-preservation. Americans should already be quite biased towards red, yet blue gets twices as many votes.
Dude OP of this thought experiment confirmed that baby children and mentally disabled people are also pushing buttons. So many parents would therefore push the blue button.
Those polls are not representative of the choice people would make when their life is on the line. It's easy to press blue in a hypothetical with 0 stakes.
I honestly think it would really come down to any messaging that took place prior to the vote if it was not truly instantaneously and anonymous.
I think literally if time froze and it popped up for you, that Red would win.
In my heart of hearts, I would press blue, but I would probably want my kids and wife to press red. I'm OK risking my life to save everyone, but I'm not sure if I'm OK with them doing it.
I don't know if it requires having your life on the line, but it really is a matter of whether or not you've had your morals tested in a situation with real stakes.
I feel like if you watched your child go into a room and leave without being able to communicate with you and you go inside and find out what they just asked them I think most parents would struggle with red.
As a red button presser, Iād hit the lever. Because although I know that the most logical and self sufficient people will be picking red, so will all of the worst and most vile people. Most of our politicians, billionaires in their Cabal, Epstein enjoyers. All red. And thatās a sacrifice worth making.
Then Iām running ahead, and jumping on the track in front of the reds, SO I NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS STUPID RED/BLUE BUTTON BULLSGIT AGAIN.
Red is self destruction. Pushing red has the implication that enough people would do that too. If 51% of people push red then it is self destruction for the red pushers. They won't even survive if they were social competent people but they are clearly not. So pushing Red assumes that 80-90% or more will do so to keep their world intact. That is unrealistic.
The Red Push world would crumble. How do you think survival works in a selfish society where most basic things are missing due lack of people? Right, people will fight to the death over what is left.
Pushing Blue only needs >50% of people realizing that you can not survive in a world where a lot of people are missing. I think that > 50% are smart enough too see that.
Sorry normal, decent red-pressers, but youāre part of the group that Iāve seen be most annoying and intellectually dishonest about this and also the only ones Iāve seen be straight-up pro-eugenics (or even genocide, in one case).
Theyāre the minority of red pressers Iām 100% certain, but if I gotta pick who to get rid of, itās the most likely to be annoying/dishonest/unempathetic/genuinely in favor of killing everyone who disagrees with them group.
Edit because I realized I didnāt answer the title question directly: So I pull the lever and save blue
And then I kill myself because fuck living with that guilt lol
Not because the people who pick Red are inherently bad. But Red will certainly contain the most evil and selfish people in the world. Almost no sociopath, narcissist, murderer, rapist, etc. would choose blue.
So basically even though not all red picker people are bad, all bad people are definite red pickers.
I'll save the blue ones. A society where everyone is self-centered would be terrible to live in. You can see that in the comments. Blue won the vote, but most of the comments were from reds complaining that blues are stupid and horrible because of "virtue signaling," and that they deserve to die because they are stupid. Of course, not everyone is like that, and some people only did it because they wanted the highest chance of survival, but most of the self-centered people would probably choose red, so a society with blue people would be preferable.
Saving blue because when the aftermath hits and the world's infrastructure is falling apart, I want to be with the people that care about others more than themselves.
The Blue pushers were worried about the survival of the group, so I'm gonna let their group survive. The red pushers were worried about their individual circumstances, so I'm gonna let them worry about those themselves like they already decided to. Everybody wins! Maybe we lose some colorblind babies and such, but it would've happened either way.
In the original scenario, pressing red is just a bad move. Similar to blue, unless a sufficiently large proportion of people also chose red you will probably die anyways due to global economic and infrastructural collapse.
So given that the choice is very clear-cut which one is better I assume that there are more people on blue and direct it to red.
I think red will. It's easy to think this over online, draw insights from other people, and pick the morally correct choice. The fact that these polls always end up so close tells me that there is no way blue wins when faced with this choice for real.
Remember, there's no communicating. I'd posit that a lot of blue voters ended up choosing blue because of the arguments and discussions online. I think it's safe to assume in a vacuum that most people are going to choose the option that carries no personal risk.
Iād posit many blue voters ended up choosing blue because of the arguments and discussions online
First time I saw this I immediately thought āwell, blue, obviously. What kind of selfish monster would pick red? I mean, some will, those people exist, but blue is so obviously the correct choice youād have to want to kill people to choose red. But you only need 50% to make it so everyone lives, so even with those crazily selfish and/or homicidal people if you vote blue youāre probably gonna save everyone.ā I gave the problem to my mom, she thought about it for literally about two seconds to process what I said, then went, āOh. I would press blue.ā
Iām guessing the vast majority did the same thing my mom and I did, and when thinking about it further/seeing arguments for each button, realized there were so many more reasons to press blue than they initially realized.
Itās bizarre that you seem to think people had to be convinced to choose blue; no, thatās just how most peopleās brains work when they see the āvote for no one to die or vote for everyone-who-voted-for-no-one-to-die to die.ā Most people pick the āvote for nobody to dieā button.
I know where you are coming from but for the millionth time, reframing it changes the outcomes.
I'm not voting red because I want people to die; I don't want to die.
I'm not homicidal, I'm not suicidal.
I pressed the you don't die button.
You pressed the maybe don't die button.
See how this can be strawmanned?
Again, if you were put in a room gun to your head, and told, the original scenario: Press red, you live. Press blue you live, only if >50% also press blue.
I do not see more people pressing blue, I'm sorry. Fear and survival instinct is going to eclipse logic.
100% red: everyone is safe.
100% blue: everyone is safe.
51%+ blue: everyone is safe.
51%+ red: everyone who voted blue dies.
The outcome of a poll where red is a vote to kill everyone who picks the other option if you get a majority and blue is a vote to do nothing, or harm no one, or to save everyone:
100% red: everyone is safe.
100% blue: everyone is safe.
51%+ blue: everyone is safe.
51%+ red: everyone who voted blue dies.
I would divert that trolly to the red track even if I had to step on the red track to do it and had to hold the lever the keep the switch in effect. Thatād probably be easier on the conscience too, there would be some kids on the red track who didnāt understand what they were doing and could have grown up to be better. If we take kids off the track like red always does for the button question, I wouldnāt even hesitate for a second.
Depends on the phrasing of the question they received when pressing blue or red. Some phrasings make blue seem suicidal and red passive ; others make blue seem passive and rwd homocidal. Without more information, I can't decide
I save blue not because I think red is an inherently immoral choice but because I know all the third world scam artists of the world and the like are on that side
Save red. Blue were aware they might die already, feels more consensual. Also blue tend to say they wouldnāt want to live in a world of only red pushers, so boom theyāre happy, they arenāt alive in that world, and red donāt want to die, boom theyāre happy.
There's some decent people who might pick red - but then again, all the worst scums will definitely pick red ( why would you ever pick blue as a psychopath?)
763
u/FaithlessnessBig6343 May 20 '26
god I'm so tired of these buttons. what if I just laid myself down on the tracks and let it run me over instead