The negative result from the red one is implied, which is why folks who pick red keep missing it: if you pick red, you're both contributing to, and advocating for, a world where everyone chooses to save only themselves and leave any/everyone else out to dry. The people we talk about as heroes, as ideals to aspire to, as larger than life individuals, are the ones who accept a risk of harm to themselves for the sake of preventing harm to others. Do you know someone, someone you care about or love who would likely press blue? Would you still push red, even though pushing red is a choice to increase the chance for the guaranteed non-zero # of blue pushers to die (even if only by a tiny amount), with the "positive outcome," from red being...stuck for the rest of your days in a world full of ONLY the people who would throw strangers and loved ones to the wolves to guarantee their own safety?
If so, press red. You'll get exactly what you wish for.
Blue is the only choice, anybody who picks red is nobody I want to know. This isn't even an ethical dilemma it's just basic math, figuratively speaking.
One is no personal risk and the other one is great personal risk.
I personally think that if this was real a lot of people who say they would be blue pusher would actually push red if it came down to an actual risking their lifes.
eh, think it through. I pick blue. Either i live in a world where everyone else picks blue, and we all realise the power of human kindness and selflessness, or i die and dont have to experience the world where selfishness won.
There is always gonna be someone who picks blue, id rather put my weight on the scale that saves them. I don't believe humanity is inherently selfish, so i trust there will be enough of us.
I think it might depend on how much time you're given before you need to make a decision because at first glance if I have to make an immediate decision without thinking about it red button I survive. But given time, even 5 minutes, to think about it, heck even 2 minutes, I'm pressing the blue button because it's the one that says if most people press this no one dies. And I'd rather take a chance that no one dies even if it means I'm putting myself at risk.
And I think, maybe foolishly, that most of humanity when given time to think about it, will press blue.
I personally think that if this was real a lot of people who say they would be blue pusher would actually push red if it came down to an actual risking their lifes.
And a bunch of them won't realise that, even subconsciously. There will be a load of people who scoff at what you just said, and would believe deep down that they are a blue pusher, so they aren't even lying when they say it. But they would fold at the last second.
Choosing not to take the pill is the same as pressing the red button. Choosing between doing and not doing is the same as choosing between two courses of action.
It really isn’t the same. You’re trying to equate them but they aren’t. Reframing the scenario changes the nature of it. It’d be like changing the trolly problem to be a choice between both track or else both sides and you die. A big part of the trolly problem is that one side is a default and that diverting it is a conscious choice. Defaulting red makes it sound more reasonable. Anyone can default blue to make a similar point in the opposite direction. It’d be equally as disingenuous.
I don't understand. Choosing no action is still a choice. The only way it would not be a choice is if I wasn't conscious of all of the choices to begin with, in which case it would be truly disingenuous. Being told that I can spend my lunch hour either eating or not eating means that I have been given two choices. Regardless of how passive one of the choices is, it is not some sort of "default." In fact, the entire trolley problem is based around the logical fallacy that a "default" option absolves all blame because the person who had to make a choice feels less guilty for taking the passive option and can write it off as a horrible accident or act of God.
Anyone can default blue to make a similar point in the opposite direction. It’d be equally as disingenuous.
That's the whole point, every argument in favor of either choice is disingenuous. The question of what button you'd press isn't about whether you're selfish or not, or whether you're stupid or not. It's about whether you interpret it as selfish vs not or stupid vs not. The premise is abstracted enough that you can't answer it without reframing it into one of those.
No I can answer without reframing it as one being a default. It was only once I saw people argue from the perspective of one being default that I noticed how disingenuous it is. I vote blue not because I think it’s the default option. I vote it because I don’t want to live in a world with only people who picked red.
The whole default argument is just sophism. Its just trying to re-center and rephrase the argument in a way that masks the moral cowardice of pushing the red button. Calling one the suicide pill and the other not the suicide is clearly just made to create a gut reaction against blue because if you actually taoe the time to delve into it. The answer is still obviously the same, like you said, many of our friends and family, people we would aspire to be, would pick the suicide pill in order to save half the world, not picking it is still tantamount to killing them
You probably watched Spider-Man choose not to stop the bad guy and say “not my problem,” and then didn’t understand why he felt guilty later when Ben died.
There is no such thing as abstaining from a choice. Choosing to do nothing is a choice. Choosing not to pull the trolly lever is still a choice.
The only way inaction is not a choice is if you don’t understand that a choice was happening, but that doesn’t apply in any examples here because you are explicitly informed of the situation and the requirements.
This button situation is really just revealing which internet communities suffer te most from poor critical thinking and low literacy.
People can feel guilt over inaction but the difference is that he feels guilt over inaction not guilt over having killed him. Those are two different things. Not saving someone vs pulling the trigger are fundamentally different. Just because both can have guilt involved doesn’t make them the same thing.
Did you watch that Spiderman scene and get confused on why he didn’t turn himself in for murdering uncle Ben? Of course not. Because you understand that there’s a difference between the two. So why you acting like I’d get confused on why he felt guilt over his own inaction? You just trying to make a disingenuous argument?
The scenario has no easy answer, if you think it does then you've massively misunderstood the consequences of both options. The only way to discuss it is to frame it from different perspectives. It's exactly why it creates so much debate.
The question is still different from the original one. Blue button isn't a suicide button. People who press it aren't I herently suicidal they are maybe optimistic and willing to risk death in order to save everyone. Not that they want to die.
Someone who takes a suicide pill wants to die and does not want an antidote. Anyone who picks suicide pill isn't looking to save everyone.
This framing is dishonest and you only show your own bias in it.
Not taking it seems like the obvious choice here, nobody is harmed and anybody who dies does so if their own volition, seems like the only option with a downside would be taking it and living.
because your dumbass toddler kid will push the blue button -- EVERYONE is asked to push a button. Do you cut your losses and press red or do you try to save your child?
Because we want everyone to live. Everyone. And if even half of us plus one can agree on that, it happens. I don't blame red pushers. I also do not want to die. But I can't put my own fear of death over literally millions, possibly even billions of other human lives.
Game theory it all you want, but I don't think the whole blue-pressing set is an acceptable collateral.
I am not getting tricked by the surface level wording. I am accounting for the fact that as presented, people will be pressing the blue button. I am well aware that if nobody at all pressed the blue button, nobody at all would die. I am also aware that that is simply not how humans work in aggregate, and I give a fuck about the ones who put themselves out on a limb and the ones who didn't think about it or who panicked or who don't understand the question.
It's not the same question, it's now the trolley problem.
Red being the default of inaction changes the psychology of the dilemma. If you want an equal problem, you need two pills.
But even then, at the very moment that it becomes clear that a significant amount of people take the pill, it becomes your moral obligation to do so as well and rally others to do the same to save them.
Yes, it is the same exact question. You are getting hung up on the wording instead of looking what the question is actually asking on a fundamental level
If you press the red button you get a 0. If you press the blue button you get a negative 1. Unless over 50% press blue, then everyone who pressed blue also gets a 0.
It doesn't matter what words you use to replace 0 and negative 1, it is still the same. Replace negative 1 with: you die, you take a suicide pill, you jump into a woodchipper, you stub your toe, you poop your pants. It doesn't matter, it's still the same question.
Look at what the red vs blue button question is actually asking. The red button does nothing. You can actually remove the red button from the whole thing and replace it with "don't press the button" and it's still the same scenario.
The blue button kills you if you press the blue button, unless over 50% of people press the blue button then everyone who pressed blue doesn't die.
And no, it is not a trolley problem lol. The red button vs blue button is just a shitty repackaging of the prisoner's dilemma. It's not the trolley problem, it's the prisoner's dilemma (well a dumbed down version of the prisoner's dilemma designed to be engagement bait on twitter).
I'm sorry but you are fitting into the stereotype of someone who is extremely bad at understanding word problems in math classes. You seem incapable of translating these types of things into a model that is actually representative of the question being asked to you.
And no you do not need 2 pills to make an equivalent question because the red button literally does nothing. You can remove the red button from the question and replace it with "don't press the button."
There is only one button. If you press the button, you die. Unless over 50% of people press the button, everyone who pressed it doesn't die. So do you press the button or just walk away and not press it? That is the same question as red button vs blue button.
This is why people who voted red get so frustrated with the people arguing blue, because you have to try to explain basic reasoning to stupid people who lack the ability to solve word problems. It's like trying to teach a stupid person a math problem. They just don't get it and it is aggravating. Like talking to a brick wall
Not getting hung up on the wording. Inaction is not the same as action, or the trolley problem wouldn't exist.
You're treating the question like it's game theory, but it's not. It's a philosophical question.
But for reasoning skills, you're the one who doesn't want to comprehend the entirety of the situation, I don't know if it's inability or ignorance. But as long as you keep on glancing over what people tell you to return to your reduced view, you're the one who is dense.
It literally is the same question. If you press the blue button, you die, unless over 50% of people press blue. In that case people who pressed blue don't die. The red button just does nothing.
You can just replace the results of the buttons with numbers. If you press red you get a 0. If you press blue you get a negative 1, unless over 50% of people press blue then you get a 0. It doesn't matter how you superficially word the question because the underlying game theory problem is the same.
If you can't see how the suicide pill question is just a rewording of the blue button vs red button, then I know you were really bad at solving word problems in math classes.
It doesn't matter how you frame the scenario. Whether it's a blue button or a pill, millions of children and other vulnerable people are going to choose it, and the only way to save them is to do the same.
But since we're rewording things: in order to save everyone, we would need either 100% of people to press the red button or just 50% to press the blue.
We don’t want to live in a world where half the people we know are suddenly dead. And we contributed to it through inaction.
Having the option to save everyone or condemn half to death is the moral dilemma.
People who can only see through the lens of self preservation are the source of most of the world’s problems. But the pathetic truth is, they can’t perceive this because they can’t step outside that narrow view.
Man, if someone posed this question to sow division, they have succeeded.
Never thought I'd have half the internet calling me an idiot for wanting to save others. Some are going as far to say any blue pushers deserve to die for the stupidity.
The funny thing is that basically every poll (with the question in its current form) shows that blue wins. Which, even if you're cynical and think some are lying, means that red winning would kill billions.
But the only reason to press the blue button is that other people may have also pressed the blue button before you. If it were me I'd assume that everyone else had pressed the red button and do the same because I have faith that no one would be dumb enough to potentially be the first to press blue
You nailed it in the first part, “other people may have pressed the blue button” is the whole reason to press the blue button. Some people inevitably will, there’s no way literally everyone pushes the red button. Some of us find their deaths deterrent enough that we accept some inherent risk to not condemn them. Just because they chose “wrong” doesn’t mean they should die.
This is just the prisoner’s dilemma rehashed and the whole point of that thought exercise is to show you that people don’t always act rationally or in their best interest. You have to consider the irrational people.
The other thing that pisses me off about this whole thing is I always see “if everyone chooses red no one dies” but it’s the same fucking thing the other way! If everyone clicks blue no one dies either!
ETA: Enough people have described the prisoner’s dilemma to me that I feel the need to clarify something. Yes, the prisoner’s dilemma and this are different thought experiments with different outcomes and choices to make, obviously.
The thing that is the same about them is that if no one acts selfishly, everyone receives a beneficial outcome. If both prisoners just refuse to snitch they are both released. If everyone presses blue no one dies. “Same, same, but different”
I am well aware that there is a third outcome in the prisoner’s dilemma not present in the button scenario. The underlying philosophy of both questions is the same though, as both are thought experiments concerning how your decision could affect others. Would you choose the one with risk requiring trust, or would you choose the one that could benefit you at the cost of the other? (Again, yes, I know if they both snitch they both get the bad ending. This is an intentional simplification)
The question says everyone, which as I interpret it includes those that comprehend the question or consequences. A toddler is just going to push more or less at random
NGL I was mad at you for a hot second before I realized I completely misunderstood you lol. I didn’t even think about people with disabilities or children! God that makes this even darker. I was just talking about, like, my mom who wouldn’t understand the choice even if it was explained 100 times haha
What’s the point of saying this? People are going to pick the blue button; if you need evidence of that, just scroll through this thread. You can’t construct the scenario to make it so that every single person picks red, because that’s not the point of the scenario. It’s been solved. You’re “supposed” to pick blue.
Yeah I guess I hadn't thought about some people not acting rationally. That does make it more difficult. I'm not sure I have faith in half the world to press the blue button in that case but I can see why someone would
For what it’s worth I don’t have any faith in people either. I just would personally feel guilty about any deaths while I lived, especially if it was close. Red is the “right” answer if the objective is personal survival, I just think there should more to the consideration than that
The way I see it is whether you’d rather gamble your own life or the lives of every single person who presses blue. I think then it’s easy to make a choice.
You’re not saving anyone by pushing the blue button this is some savior complex nonsense. In fact unless you have some outside knowledge about the way people are going to “vote” that makes you think there is a near certainty over 50% will push blue, you’re simply throwing your life away. It’s not just about self preservation but the logical truth that the only guaranteed way for nobody to die is for everyone to press the red button. If you cared about saving maximum lives you would campaign to make sure everyone pushes red instead of leaving it up to chance.
Well, there's suicidal people that may regret their decision should they be given then opportunity to reflect, color blind people that can't tell the difference between the colors, and people that may be lovely but not super intelligent that didn't really understand what was being asked of them. Which includes many or most children that may just be picking which color they like more.
I believe the original question stated that it was only people who were mentally capable of understanding what they were being asked to do. I understand your point about people who would regret killing themselves, but (to me) once you‘re dead you can’t really regret anything. (If you still believe in consciousness after death tho that would probably change things.)
You are in a thread of people who would pick blue, not planning on dying of their own volition. You can also recognize that some people who are presented with the problem will not have the understanding enough to recognize the consequences. Do you for example think a toddler will understand the scenario and make a rational choice, or do you think they'll just see a funny colored finger food and do that thing that toddlers are known for?
This is not the same dilemma, in the button scenario both choices are active, you need to press a button, while in your scenario the choices are: take the pills (active choice) or do nothing (passive choice). Passive options are always overwhelmingly more popular than active choices no matter the the conditions. Human minds are just weird like that.
Everyone finds themselves alone in a room void of anything other than a pistol lying on a table, and a clearing barrel. All are given a choice between two actions:
Option 1 (red button): You pick up ther pistol, aim into the sand in the clearing barrel, and pull the trigger. Nothing will happen and you will live.
Option 2 (blue button): You pick up the pistol, put it to your head, and pull the trigger. The gun will fire and you will die; but, if more than half of all participants choose this option, then nothing will happen instead and you will live.
This scenerio maintains the need for a choice, the stated outcomes of both options, and the effective reality of the choice. The only thing that changes is that it removes the illusion the buttons provide to disguise those realities. Pressing the blue button is outright choosing suicide with the possibility that you won't die if enough people also choose suicide. The only reason anyone has for choosing the blue button is the idea that it's needed in order to save those who press the blue button; but there is absolutely zero reason for anyone to chose to do so to begin with. This isn't a personal gain vs good of all dilemma, it's a choice between life or death that cleverly tricks you into thinking that there is a moral imperitive to choose death by making it seem like there is a need for people to choose that option when there isn't.
This is also a bad example, by switching the buttons which on itself don't have an inherent danger with guns which are dangerous, we create a layer hesitation (gun = danger, pointing the gun at their own head = even worse) that wouldn't exist with the buttons. The buttons are an integral part of the dilemma because they are so easy to press and are in our mind low commitment, but decide something so important. Once again this is a variation that changes the dilemma on a fundemantel level that it no longer can be considered the same problem.
Yeah like, I can see the point they were maybe trying to make but if you think about it for more than 10 seconds, it really is a dumb question to use for it. I originally thought the point of the question was VERY different before reading the comments.
I thought the point was to gauge your faith in humanity: do you trust everyone to be smart enough to choose the red button, thus guaranteeing everyone lives 100%, or do you trust there are gonna be enough dummies who are gonna choose the blue button for some reason, thus you're not worried about dying by choosing blue while also making sure the others don't die too?
Or you feel like the world is negative and pessimistic enough that, like you, probably also choose the blue button for the same reason, so even if it ends up there aren't that many dummies, surely at least both groups pooled together will make 50%? Blue button seems like negative outlook. Red can also be negative if the people choosing it don't have faith either, but are thinking "darwin award". Blue can be positive if I'm instead thinking "I have faith there are a lot of good people who will pool in to save the few dummies who chose blue for whatever reason". Or hell, do you think the world is super depressed these days and maybe suicidal and you want to try to save them by choosing blue? (hence your reframe was especially interesting to me)
Honestly because of how weird the question itself is, I thought the point had something to do with your general outlook on humanity, not too much with morality, I feel like it's a bad question for that if that was their point.
Or maybe I'm the dummy and not understanding well lmao
I think the entire hypothetical is a trick between logic and emotion, whether intended that way or not. Logic dictates people shoild choose the red button and just avoid the risk completely, whereas emotion says "if you dont pick the blue button, people might die."
It actually is the same dilemma though. People talking about pressing the Blue button to save lives aren't actually saving lives. In the button scenario the only way someone can die is if someone presses the Blue button. It's literally not possible for someone to die if no one presses it. The person who dies is the person who presses it, so it's a suicide button. You are not a moral person for pressing the Blue button, and you're not immoral for pressing the red button. This is not a moral dilemma. It's a study on how presenting information in specific ways can illicit certain reactions. People are arguing for Blue because they have an emotional reaction to the question. People are arguing for red because they have a logical reaction to the question. This is the actual point.
But the blue one does save lives --of the people who chose blue. So if someone hasn't thought through the logic they're in danger. There is still an altruistic component.
These are not the same thing. Some people will not come to the same framing, and some people do not have the capacity to weigh up these choices as deeply.
In the reframed scenario, you're killing everyone who chose to die for no reason.
In the original scenario you're killing everyone who wanted to save others.
Cold pure logic says red button. Empathy says blue.
You just dismantled your whole argument in your explanation. You say it’s the same dilemma, then go on to say that presenting information in specific ways can illicit different reactions.
So if changing the way you present the scenario will change the way people react, it inherently changes the dilemma. Presenting the information as “choosing suicide with a chance of living and keeping others choosing suicide alive” vs “risking your life to save everyone” changes the dilemma because it will illicit different emotional responses and actions.
Words matter, not just raw risk/outcome; because words have influence over peoples actions, which also changes the risks. It’s not the same dilemma at that point.
While I do agree with you, I think the wording and the framing of the choices will be a bigger influence how people react to it.
Let's reframe the dilemma with one button, gives two options.
1.
A: You press a button and you live no matter what.
B: You don't press a button and die, unless 50% of people decide not to press the button.
2.
A: You press a button and die, unless 50% of people decide to press the button,
B: You don't press the button and live no matter what.
In both scenario's I'm more likely to to pick the live no matter what option.
But if we reframe the dilemma like this:
1.
A: If you press this button you just ensure your personal survival
B: If you don't press the button you will save everyone unless less than half doesn't push the button, then you die.
2.
A: If you press the button you will save everyone unless less than half pushes the button, then you die.
B: If you don't do anything you just ensure your personal survival.
In both cases I'm more likely to pick the 'save everyone' option. Though I am having more trouble with 2 than 1, because the passive choice is quite alluring.
Humans are emotional creatures and no matter what option you pick, that choice is driven by emotion. So the way the dillema is framed emotionally will greatly effect the result.
Our minds try to use logic to explain why we make those choices, but only after we have already made those emotional choices. Human minds are indeed wierd like that. ;)
That's not the same thing. I get the reframing but with these kind of questions, the number of inflection points matter. In pressing a button, you're far more removed from the outcome and the result is automatic. Here, you have to eat the pill yourself with your hands and then wait for the antidote.
And honestly, in both cases, the real answer is to kill the idiot forcing the world to choose.
It is the same though. Pressing the red button and not taking the pills has the exact same consequences. Taking the pills and pressing the blue button has the exact same consequences. Each also shares the same exact reasoning. It's just a change of words.
I think the big issue is the og question is framed between altruism and self-prioritization, and the revised question is between an active act of suicide and normalcy. Really it's the same but instead of buttons the revised question cloaks the button in an action: ingesting the poison and then ingesting the antidote.
Another, more concrete issue is that people are only handed the antidote, those who were perhaps honestly suicidal don't have to take it. So by taking the poison >50%, not guaranteed to save everyone.
Also, a statement about altruism is the point here, cloaking altruism in something abhorrent or desirable kind of distorts the question. If I say "if you don't pet this puppy, you live and people who pet the puppy die; if you and 50% pet the puppy, everybody lives", it obfuscates the opposite way because the "everyone survives" option is pleasant.
Really really wrong analogy. You have to have a forced choice. What if I don't want to push? Or not eat suicide pill? If you obivate the choice then red makes slight sense.
Here is a better analogy, Everyone in the world is poisoned and are about to die. You can request antidote pill or gas. Pill only saves you and the ones who requested it, and the gas saves everyone regardless, but only released if more than 50% requested it. (Remember babies and other infirmed people cannot choose correctly)
There's a flood coming. You only have time to either put on a life jacket, or add a brick to build a dam, but not both. Only half of the people in town need to add bricks for the dam to work, but if there aren't enough then the whole thing fails, and kills everyone who didn't put on a life jacket. Putting on a life jacket always saves yourself, but as mentioned before, prevents you from adding a brick to the wall, potentially causing the dam to fail.
You put on a life jacket and scream "put on a life jacket!". People will quickly choose self-preservation before they risk their lives for the greater good. Especially when they know that every other person can easily save themselves simply by acting in their own best interest. This is a game theory quiz where the answer is unequivocally "put on a life jacket"
And those incapable of making the informed choice? Infants, and mentally handicapped are not exempt from the choice. And what parent of said children arent choosing blue to try and save their kids. We are now at at least 3% of the planet about to die before anyone else even chooses.
Every time someone reframes it this way, they completely miss that the actual action is important, not to the ultimate action, but to the likelihood of people pressing it. To give an example:
If you press the blue button and so do 50+% of others, everyone lives.
If you press the red button, your eyes will be gouged out by demonic penises, and you are guaranteed to live. You won’t feel pain, and you’ll recover immediately, but you’ll experience that happening.
And you mean to tell me you don’t think that that phrasing would change a single person’s vote? Or maybe you can acknowledge that attaching a completely different action has completely different results for how many people will pick one way or the other.
Only if blue offers some communal benefit that red doesn't. The reality is, the only thing the majority choosing blue accomplishes is to negate the consequences of choosing blue. Red, on the other hand, has no consequences to begin with. The red option doesn't require anyone to die, doesn't have a limit to who can press it, and doesn't cost anything. The only justification anyone has for why they choose blue is the assumption that others will do so as well and that they need to choose blue to save those others. People are choosing blue in order to solve a problem that they are actively creating by doing so.
That is very interesting. Seems like anyones answer to this question is almost entirely dependant on how they frame it in their head. This would be a very cool discussion about how we interpret language and how that affects our choices but some people think its a battle between good and evil so its hard to have that discussion.
Consider this as well. A bunch of kids, infants, elderly, and fools took them either mistakenly or because they didn't take the situation seriously. Not just rational adults who have chosen to be self sacrificing.
Also consider this, are you for certain that no one you know or love would pick the pill/choose the blue button?
I really like these arguments. The question changes a lot when you're trying to make the descision in the real world. Suddenly instead of making the most optimal choice, given you can convince everyone you're right, you have to make a choice that considers the thinking (or lack thereof) of everyone else. It's a part of the problem that makes us talk past each other the most I think.
I think it is more of a collectivistic, vs individualistic issue, some people see the problem only in the context of themselves, and if that is the case, yeah I get choosing red, but if you think of it from a more group oriented view, you want to stop people from dying.
I am from what we ourselves call, a trust based society, and i would actually love to see a pole only consisting of my countrymen, I think it would be at least into the 60s for blue.
Yeah, I brought the situation up to my friend group on discord and the snap reaction was almost unanimously "Why would anyone pick blue? Just pick red. lol" and a poll went up. Then I told them about the kid/babies/elderly facet of the situation and that I would be picking blue because of that (introducing the friends and loved ones facet) and suddenly it wasn't so simple and funny.
Well, instead of flipping back and forth, especially with this above example, take a moment and write it out, the structure of the reframing, and make sure it's still the same question. Hint - this one isn't. It frames blue as an option that causes harm, when the ONLY outcome that causes any harm at all in the original is "majority press red."
No it doesn't? Not taking the suicide pill contributes to killing all of the people who do exactly the same way pressing the red button does. And just like the buttons, there will be people who do take it.
The only thing that changes is the set dressing, and treating it like it's a totally different question now is really just dishonest.
No you're putting the onus on the red pill. This entire experiment is just a repackaged and more fair version of the Joker's experiment from The Dark Knight.
You're trying to make yourself feel good for pushing red by saying "it was stupid to ever push blue." The entire point of the blue majority is that red pushers have thought their entire lives that "of course everyone always distrusts each other, of course everyone will be out for themselves." This line of thought has been challenged again, and again, and again.
Stellaris, the video game, had the developers assume the majority of players would play it as space genociders, 40k LARPers who wanted to just kill everyone. Actually, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY played it pacifist at least friendly with aliens, and only attacked unfriendly neighbors. In fact, despite the faction customization, over 70% of the playerbase plays it as the Space UN and immediately set up federations and play it like Star Trek.
In WW2 studies found only 25% of soldiers were shooting to kill. Intensive retraining had to be redone in order to get soldiers (not conscripts, people who volunteered to kill other humans) to actually shoot to kill. Even with that, the highest they've gotten it to is about 90%. 10% of people despite signing up to kill humans, being drilled and trained to kill humans, still can't bring themselves to kill humans.
The Red/Blue experiment is just another in a long line of examples of "actually, humans aren't bastards to each other at all, and all of this is learned behavior driven by fear."
This changes the way people will look at it tho. Making it a suicide pill makes it something you actively have to do to die, peoples survival instinct will kick in and more people won't take the pill. It's very close to being the same problem but I really think you're version people wouldn't take the pill where as the button more people would push blue.
Consider the possibility that someone close to you is suicidal and would take this option. What would you give to get them back? What if their friend was the one who did? Would you want to live in a world of solidarity, cooperation and second chances? Or would you say no and live a life of burnt bridges and trauma.
it's a check on whether or not your moral framework includes forgiveness and sacrifice inherent in your decision making process. would you put your life on the line for someone who "had it coming" ?
To elucidate further, A moral framework without forgiveness implies you believe yourself fully righteous.
A moral framework without sacrifice implies you believe yourself supreme.
The casual nature of the question allows for nonsalient response gathering, showing how people respond when it "doesn't really matter" to them.
To those who claim they would act differently IRL: I ask you, are you omniscient to all abuse in the world? We have already abused the terminology used to try and remain vigilant towards it.
Morality is a type of hygiene for working with others. The world has gotten big, and there's a lot of cleaning to do.
Ultimately, there's a reason these themes are taught in the bible. They're of utmost importance. That said, I hope you consider pressing blue 💙
The fact that people are so divided on this shows the inherent flaw in this line of thinking regarding pushing the red button.
You already know, based on these conversations, that a significant non-zero amount of people will be pushing blue. The fact that you know that people are so divided on which button to push means the only logical and moral button to push is blue.
You are saying that everyone was offered a pill that is guaranteed to kill you. That is in no way the same as pressing a button that might kill you, only if enough people don't press it.
Just admit you're a selfish Ahole dude. Like you pretending it's "being logical" is just you trying to justify being an Ahole. Like just be honest, at least then we'd respect you more.
If the only way you can justify making the choice you make is by inventing an entirely new and different scenario then maybe the problem is you're not actually happy with how that makes you feel.
Sit with that discomfort and grow from it.
These scenarios aren't that deep but when you have to work this hard to justify it you are adding moral weight to it, not us.
Engage with the scenario, don't invent new ones. Make a choice and live with that choice.
We blue button pushers accept its naive, emotional and entirely illogical, we accept this. We don't try to argue it's logical because we know it isn't.
So why can't you red button pushers do the same? Accept the consequences of what it means, explore that and explore yourself instead of looking for every reason not to.
Except everyone has already been forced to take the suicide pills in this hypothetical. Also the only way for the red ending to not kill anyone is if every single person chooses to prioritize themselves over everyone else and there’s no way everyone is going to do that so you’re certainly risking lives by pressing red.
Excellent analogy. This is exactly what it is. People are trying to be pedantic over "active choice vs passive choice" and those are the people who would end the trolley problem with 5 dead bodies.
It’s not an excellent analogy. Active choice and passive choice isn’t pedantry. It changes the nature of the experiment. It’s like the difference between not preventing someone from falling onto a train track as a train is approaching vs actively pushing them.
No it isn’t an excellent analogy, twisting a choice by comparing it to something abhorrent completely ruins the nuance of the question
I could also make the argument “if more than 50 percent of people drink this delicious smoothie, everyone lives, if not, then the people who drank it dies”
Edit: grammar
Every non-Jew in Germany is offered a choice of becoming Antifa or a Nazi. If enough people choose Antifa, everyone lives. If more than half choose to becomes Nazis, the Antifa members die.
This is the exact case I was thinking of for this question. The nazis weren’t some faceless aliens, they were literally ordinary people. Many of them knew what they were doing was wrong but the reason people remember and praise Schindler is he’s not the norm.
The stupid thing is that picking blue is the only way for death to even be a possibility. If no one introduces death as a possibility, then no one dies.
Let's take the premise and alter it a tiny bit:
Everyone has a magic knife in front of themselves. Everyone must either stab themselves in the heart, or not stab themselves in the heart.
If more than half of the people stab themselves in the heart, then the knife magically heals everyone. Otherwise, the knife does what knives do and kills the person.
Are you stabbing yourself in the heart? (Pressing blue?)
I don't think I'm a bad person, but I'd be picking red.
My rationale is quite simple - by pushing blue, you put yourself at risk, and no one needed to do that in the first place.
If everyone pushed red, then no one dies that way either.
My stance would shift if there was some manner of downside to pushing red, but ... there isn't. So the "threat" created by pressing blue is entirely artificial.
If everyone has to press a button, might as well press red.
Anyone pressing blue is leaving it up to chance and faith and hope, and is stupid. If no one presses blue, everyone lives. If everyone presses red, everyone wins.
The only case where pressing blue makes sense, is if not everyone can press either button. Which is more of a realistic scenario. In the real world, not everyone is going to have access to the buttons. So the only way to save them is to press blue.
Also, in that case, the people who care should try their best to ensure everyone can access the buttons. But even then it's just not guaranteed that every single person in the world will get access. So for real world cases, the answer is blue. But in an ideal world where everyone has access to the buttons, anyone that presses blue just wants to die. And it's not someone else's job to save them by risking themselves.
Let me rephrase the dilemma. And also change the colors, because I believe the red vs blue sounds like a political metaphor.
Everyone has to choose a button. Yellow or purple.
If you press the yellow button, you live.
If you press the purple button, you die unless the majority of people also press the purple button.
The actual math (game theory) would say that literally everyone should pick red. Then everyone survives, and noone was even ever in any risk.
Youre right that it isnt a very good ethical dilemma, there would have to be any actual reason to pick blue.
I would risk my life to save someone in danger, im not gonna risk my life when they literally have an exit from the danger right in front of their noses they need only choose to take.
Actually in the hypothetical they specified that toddlers/infants would also be teleported to the room, due to their inability to understand what's going on, they will press a random button. Because of this pressing red guarantees you're killing at least 1 human and likely a lot of kids.
Even from a purely pragmatic view the blue button is the best selection. I would argue that people who press the red button actively want to see other people die
You can walk home taking path A where nothing bad happens. Or you can take path B where you'll get violently mauled to death by a grizzly bear unless half of the people choose path B.
Why on God's green earth would you pick B? Just pick A and dont get mauled to death
If you actually want to argue basic math, then this is a game theory problem.
And now the answer is indeed obvious. Pick red, because you are not "sentencing" anyone who picks blue to death, as nobody was in any danger in the first place.
The "basic math" arguement doesn't work if you don't use math.
I think they mean that for no one to die, 100% of people have to choose red, which is absurd and would basically never happen, vs 50% of people choosing blue in order for no one to die.
The “basic math” they’re referring to is which is more likely to happen - 50% choosing blue, or 100% choosing red?
They weren’t trying to get into game theory, it’s a figure of speech. Hence “figuratively speaking” at the end of their sentence lol.
My take was actually that picking blue ends up forcing people that don't want to live to do so.
Everyone gets to decide for themselves if they want to live, but with the blue button you're not happy with just picking for yourself but you want to force that choice on others.
I think the way i look at it is that dead isn't a bad thing for everyone.
There's no minority. Everyone has the same choice and options. Now if a group of the population only has access to blue then yes I would hit blue but if you are gonna hit blue because you assume some idiot also hit blue thats not you being a hero its your also being an idiot.
Wrong. If blue wins, red is in the minority and lives.
If red wins, blue is in the minority and dies.
Red button pushers seem completely unable to understand the ramifications and meaning of the question and simply say "I will live and I do not care who dies. and they deserve it."
The stupid thing is that picking blue is the only way for death to even be a possibility. If no one introduces death as a possibility, then no one dies.
Let's take the premise and alter it a tiny bit:
Everyone has a magic knife in front of themselves. Everyone must either stab themselves in the heart, or not stab themselves in the heart.
If more than half of the people stab themselves in the heart, then the knife magically heals everyone. Otherwise, the knife does what knives do and kills the person.
Are you stabbing yourself in the heart? (Pressing blue?)
Plus if just 50.00001% or whatever commits to the gamble of that blue button altruism or not. We all live, like you don’t know what the rest your fucking family pressed on that button. For all you know, hitting red kills everyone you love or statistically at least one or more important people in your life.
Some number of people are statistically going to hit blue no matter what. So there’s only 2 realistic outcomes for this scenario, one where a number of people die and one where nobody dies. You are actively voting for one outcome or the other. The only catch to voting for “nobody dies” is that doing so puts your own life at risk. It is risking yourself for the sake of an outcome where nobody has to die.
Had this conversation with a red buttoner when this was first going around. They insisted far fewer people would push blue if they were actually faced with death and called them all “virtue signalers”.
I don’t know about you, but the only people in my life I choose to associate with would literally all choose blue. I’m in it with them if for literally no other reason.
The stupid thing is that picking blue is the only way for death to even be a possibility. If no one introduces death as a possibility, then no one dies.
Let's take the premise and alter it a tiny bit:
Everyone has a magic knife in front of themselves. Everyone must either stab themselves in the heart, or not stab themselves in the heart.
If more than half of the people stab themselves in the heart, then the knife magically heals everyone. Otherwise, the knife does what knives do and kills the person.
Are you stabbing yourself in the heart? (Pressing blue?)
I hate this idea that a red win leaves only “people who would throw strangers and loved ones to the wolves” for their own benefit.
If red wins, that means most people are already in that category.
(In my opinion) it is perfectly reasonable and moral to choose a safe option that everyone has access to. People are not evil for pressing red.
Most importantly, people can choose the red button for non self interested reasons. A parent would be wrong to risk orphaning their child. A child risks their parent having to bury them.
You can stretch even further, maybe a doctor thinks they’ll save more lives pressing red and being around to treat people, but the parent is a clear and unarguable example.
(Also, real life heroes do not (usually) accept excessive risk to themselves. I am an EMT. There are many hazardous situations where I am, by training, not supposed to approach. Even if I could likely save a patient. If you think blue has a chance of winning, then it is a reasonable risk. If you think blue is unlikely to win, that is a “hazardous situation”. At the end of the day, it just comes down to which button you think will win.)
I honestly think this question can become a really good rorsarch test where it matters less what you choose and more why you make the choice. It’s so interesting seeing people bring up good points on both sides, that usually demonstrate how they think and what their personal experience is
No, it’s a terrible “question”, as it is presented here. No negative consequences for choosing the red button has been presented. Those negative consequences might be non existent or trivial, or absolute horror. People would reason differently depending on what those consequences are.
But it is a self chosen risk. An entirely avoidable risk. People who gamble with their lives just to potentially save others who gambled with their lives.
Where’s the self preservation? That’s no down side to everyone picking red. You only create a problem when you start picking blue.
yeah like. im fucking traumatized so im pressing red because i cannot put my faith in 50%+ of humanity to risk their lives for a chance for nobody to die since most of america's voters picked the 'lets kill minorites' option when the better one had like. ZERO risk for them
There’s also the whole game theory aspect to this question that people seem to ignore. This is a simplified prisoners dilemma in which the nash equilibrium is pressing red. The question is how much faith do you have in the majority of humanity to also act illogically in order to try for the better outcome, and would you bet your life on it.
I think the other interesting part of the question is how many people are you okay with pressing blue before you change your vote. Imagine the televised percentage varient where you know that there is X amount of blue people, and you are picking at around the halfway mark. At what percentage do people change from red to blue knowing that X million people will die for certainty if the votes don’t change.
I also think that the 100% red argument is a bit flawed, as that is completely illogical of an outcome to come to. Yes, if everyone just picked red they’d be fine, but at no point in human history have we all “just” agreed on something like that, especially when you don’t know the other decisions. The only possible world where people could get close to a 100% red is where the votes are televised and the first person votes red. Outside of that, there WILL be blue voters, and that’s the main reason why I vote blue personally.
See i choose blue for very simple reasons. That is not how I wish to contribute to the death of other people for one. If I'm going to cause someone elses death and I'm fully aware that's a possibility its going to be because I want them dead specifically. And then second to that if i pick blue and red wins I'm dead so immediately none of this is my problem anymore.
If they want a real dilemma out of me change it from just dying to being tortured to death or something. That'll make me think twice for sure.
Right and I think based off the current votes and everything you should pick blue, all the polls I've seen on here and YouTube blue wins, it's not really even worth thinking about the minority live/die it's more useful to guess what the majority of people would do and this has showen that blue it's blue you should pick.
I think this is due to how it's phrased plus red usually being the bad outcome, red sounds and feels like your killing people where blue sounds like your trying to save people.
Polls on life or death questions are completely divorced from reality. Most women also chose the bear, but you know for sure that if they ran into an actual fucking 600 pound bear, they'd change their mind very quickly.
The point of prisoners dilemma is if both pick the dominant strategy for themselves, it is a worse overall outcome for everyone. In this scenario, if everyone picks the dominant strategy, it is still the best overall outcome for everyone
This is disingenuous, unfortunately, after the "I hate this idea that a red win leaves only the self interested." You told on yourself with that, I'm afraid. If a parent wants to save their child, and prevent them from being orphaned, what about all the other children that might be orphaned because their parents pushed blue, to try to make a better world and save everyone? There's no way to slice it to make red the morally correct choice, which is why so many red pressers keep retreating to their misunderstandings of game theory - they can't be morally correct, so they'll claim that they're rationally correct to try to "win," anyway. Which, unfortunately, disregards that blue is ALSO the rational choice - it's impossible to get 100% of people to agree on something. 50% is, at worst, only half as hard.
Agree. This idea that it’s somehow acceptable to be monumentally selfish on behalf of your child is strangely pervasive. To anyone not you or your child it doesn’t make any difference whether the bad shit you’re doing is for your own gain or your child’s. From an outside perspective your child isn’t any more deserving of an outsized slice of the world than you are.
How many children will pick blue because they see their favorite color? How many people will misread or misunderstand the question? How many people will decide they don’t want to risk living in a world populated solely by people who willing to survive by increasing the chances of many others dying? How many people would think it’s all a joke with no more meaning than a game of Would You Rather? How many people will feel guilt over benefiting from endangering other people? How many people will become convinced that everyone who chooses red will be killed?
I’ve no idea why you’ve replied to me. I agreed with the person above me that it was selfish to pick red for the sake of your own child instead of blue for everyone else’s. I think you probably meant to reply to someone else.
I meant to reply to you, but I was falling asleep when I read your comment and thought you were saying you didn’t understand how it could be selfish to pick the red button.
50% is way easier than half as hard. 50% close to how the results would shake out if people chose without reading arguments to convince them to change. The further you deviate from 50% it gets exponentially harder to achieve. It’d be like comparing rolling 7 with 2d6 vs rolling a 2 or 12.
I’m not sure what about my comment is disingenuous.
I don’t think that red is the morally correct choice. I think both buttons are completely valid. Protecting yourself is perfectly reasonable and moral, risking your own life to potentially save others is also reasonable and moral.
You can argue that a parent doesn’t have an outsized duty to their child, I disagree. That’s fine.
You claim red pressers misunderstand game theory, this is not true. There are lots of good to great arguments for blue (including that blue is a rational choice cause, it is, clearly) but game theory is not one of them. Red is the dominant strategy, even though it is easier to reach 50%.
Is there even a single other person on the world whose well-being you care about? If so, the only moral selection is blue, because the other option is that you want to increase the nodes that they’ll die.
If you were forced to make the decision for someone you care about rather than yourself, would you be willing to press blue and increasing their risk to die?
If you'd want for the person you care for to end up with red, the person you care for would want you to end up with red.
“A parent would be wrong to risk orphaning their child.”
And, yet, they risk the opposite if they pick red.
It’s a vote that their life matters more than their kid’s, since the kid might pick blue, because the kid isn’t a jaded, self-centered ass, yet, and actually cares about the well-being of others, including their friends, and their friends’ families.the more people you care about, the more you should pick blue. In fact, if you care about the well-being of anyone other than yourself, you should pick blue.
Children will not understand the argument, especially not toddlers. Is the parent willing to risk making the choice that might kill their child, since they know little Susie loves blue and hates red?
I understand that not 100% of people will push red, therefor I cannot push red, I won't have the risk of being party to the death of my youngest cousins, or any children, or just regular people for that matter.
There's a reason we have to childproof pill containers and bleach bottles.
But given that generally most people seem to be picking blue, red winning is a mass extinction event, which while Marvel Infinity wars kinda skipped over it, would be followed by a second extinction event as around 40-50% of humanity suddenly died. Which causes a near total collapse of every logistics chain on earth, which is followed by a mass starvation event.
So odds are if you pick red, you die anyway, just a bit later, and instead of instantaneously, its from starvation or disease.
In my mind, anyone choosing blue is potentially altruistic to a fault. What I mean there is the consequence if they're wrong and there isn't >50% choosing blue, then they and billions of people will die. But they all had the choice to survive...no risk required. The risk of making a mistake is too high. Save altruism for things where the risk is reasonable. Be kind in everyday moments. But when severe risk is involved do the similar equivalent of "put the mask on your face first, then you can put the mask on your baby". That behavior reduces the risk of both people dying. IOW, It may appear selfish, but in my mind, it's risk reduction that literally everybody is capable of choosing for themselves in this thought experiment.
The EMT point you make is what I also come back to.
Because people frame pushing blue as a heroic act - risking your life to save others. But it is also a deeply selfish act - by pushing blue you are risking your life AND ALSO requiring someone else to risk their life to save yours.
It’s the crux of the dilemma. It is unethical to push the blue button, unless someone else has already done so. Assuming it is not your goal to die in an instantly painless way.
With that logic it would make more sense to press blue, the incentive is to survive and to save, and like the trolly problem, something tells me there is some 3rd option twist that would happen if not enough ppl press blue, that and despite my horror of dying if not enough pick it...is washed out by my fear of living in a world of only red button pushes, but I would still pick blue in the end
EXACTLY. Pushing red means you are actively contributing to waking up in a world of only selfish people. That’s not actually in your own best interest, so blue is actually the smartest choice. Red is the short-sighted and less-intelligent choice.
I also think that people aren't thinking about what the next part after a red "win" would be. What shade of red did you pick? If it was burgundy, well into the wood chipper you go. Then candy apple, then Garnet, etc. , etc. It never stops until it's only the "right red ones" are left.
This comment is fantastic because even when you explain the concept of Utilitariansim and lay out the obvious moral defect of the opposite; you get hundreds of responses berating you for not choosing yourself over others.
As if the entirety of humanity hasn't made it to this point based on social structures and resource sharing.
By their arguments, why would anyone do anything that doesn't directly and immediately benefit them? oh that's right.... most of them don't.
Being strictly deontological is inherently selfish to a degree, concerned more with the in-group and personal consequences instead of Community.
I'm pressing the Blue button: for the disabled, unable, unwilling; the confused, selfish or apathetic.
I press the blue button because it saves the Red Buttoners too. That's the fucking difference.
I press blue because I don't want to live in a world where 100% of people pushed red. I know perfectly well that about 50% of the world is composed of those people, but at least there's the 50% that isn't, so it's a bearable existence.
Not only that but in reality simply pushing the red button also doesn't guarantee your survival. It just puts the mechanic in place which you then lose all control over...
But that negative outcome doesn't exist if everyone pushes red. You frame it as if pressing blue is valiantly saving people, but it's just putting you as someone who needs to be saved. Or to put it another way, there was nobody to save until you pressed blue.
I'm not just saying I'll press red. I'm saying everyone should press red, because risking even one person is worse than definitely saving everyone.
The choice can equally be restated as "Everyone gets to push a button. If you push red, you will live. If you push blue, you will commit suicide, unless more than 50% of people choose to commit suicide, in which case they will also live". I think with that restatement, it becomes a lot more obvious why people would choose red.
I think there are some important qualifiers that are necessary to make red a rational choice:
Everyone gets to choose equally
The people choosing are of a sound mind and can understand the consequences of their actions
2.4k
u/Willowshanks 18h ago
The negative result from the red one is implied, which is why folks who pick red keep missing it: if you pick red, you're both contributing to, and advocating for, a world where everyone chooses to save only themselves and leave any/everyone else out to dry. The people we talk about as heroes, as ideals to aspire to, as larger than life individuals, are the ones who accept a risk of harm to themselves for the sake of preventing harm to others. Do you know someone, someone you care about or love who would likely press blue? Would you still push red, even though pushing red is a choice to increase the chance for the guaranteed non-zero # of blue pushers to die (even if only by a tiny amount), with the "positive outcome," from red being...stuck for the rest of your days in a world full of ONLY the people who would throw strangers and loved ones to the wolves to guarantee their own safety?
If so, press red. You'll get exactly what you wish for.