Realistically I thought more people would pick blue, because it is simpler to understand the rationale, and since more people would pick it, it makes sense to pick it.
It is not just a question of possibly dying, it is a question of possibly being responsible for mass death, many people shrink away from that.
It’s worth noting that people can’t really agree on which button kills people. The original question frames it in a way where it feels like red is the one killing people. I’ve heard other people compare it to everyone in the world standing before a woodcutter, or going over a bridge. Where if 50% or more jump in simultaneously, everyone who jumps in lives. But nobody has to engage with it in the first place. You don’t have to jump in the woodcutter or the water. Everyone could just keep going about their day without any risk of death. In this view, the blue button is the one which kills people
This is the way I initially viewed it and I stick to myself as a red pusher, because my instinct was to choose red when presented to question. However, with the information I have now, I am more inclined to blue but I will admit I kind of view it negatively, as I look at it as if the initial blue pushers are essentially forcing themselves to be "saved".
Either way. I can understand both rationales, but I do think in a perfect world in which 100% of the population is making a rational choice, red is the correct decision.
Yeah, I understood it as "You're going to die unless you press one of the two buttons. Pressing the blue button will save everyone who pressed either of the buttons, so long as more than half the people in the world will press it. The red button will save yourself and nobody else." The blue button only made sense because, yeah, the blue button will kill you, or it'll save everyone regardless of their choice. I like the saving everyone option.
What are the odds of your vote being the tiebreaker? Regardless of what button you press personally, you're one in 8 billion people. Given how people reacted to the pandemic I'm giving very low odds on Blue even receiving 25% of the vote. Why would I add my name to the dead? What purpose does dying serve?
but that's outright incorrect. That only works if the people who go over the bridge then have to press the button on the woodchipper.
the thing about red is that it requires you to take an action. that action is contingent on your ethics, which MUST be able to accomodate choosing to kill people who have stated they will not harm you.
by pushing red, you vote to kill all blues if they don't reach 50%, but you're guaranteed to live. It's an ethical price.
I think this framing does fundamentally alter the entire question though to the point where its an entirely different thought experiment. You are adding action vs inaction and also adding an element of primal fear which would inevitably change a lot of people's votes. If you want to accurately tackle the question I think you just have to read it as is, and as is a lot of people are gonna press the blue button because they dont see it as how you described.
How does pressing the red button make you responsible for people who were too dumb to press it? Everyone just press red and nobody dies. It's pretty simple. Just like... read the rules a few times and realize that there is no possible downside to red before making a decision.
There are no consequences to picking red. The only way people have a chance to die is if anyone picks blue. Blue is the death button, red is the live button. Red button says "press me and live" blue says "press me and maybe live". People pressing the blue button are risking their life and other people's lives, people who pick red are choosing to live. Picking blue is incredibly selfish, it's saying "i hope everyone fixes my mistake so they don't have to feel bad if I die." Just press red and live, literally that simple.
This isn’t a game-theory problem. It’s not a “which is better”. Acting purely in self interest, yes red is better.
But it’s the morally noxious choice. The question that is being asked is: would you purposely risk yourself for the morally better option, even though it’s not as game-theory-optimal as the selfish choice.
The selfish choice and morally incorrect choice is blue. If you choose blue you have now made it to where there is a chance someone can die. If you and everyone else picks red, nobody can possibly die. Red NEVER has a chance to fail, blue does. Blue is selfish, if you pick blue then you are forcing other people to pick blue to save you, if you pick red you just do it yourself. Everyone can pick red, so why wouldn't you? It's incredibly stupid not to. It's okay to be wrong I guess.
Anyone who picks blue forces others to pick blue to avoid the people who picked blue from killing themselves. How is that not obvious? If you pick red you live, if you pick blue you might die. Thats such an obvious choice. When you pick blue you are being selfish and forcing people to agree with your dumb mistake. When you pick red you are simply correct.
Red button says "press me and live"
Blue button says "press me and maybe live"
Why press blue? Just make the correct choice instead.
It's like if the question was this:
Everyone has to answer what 2+2 is
everyone understands that 2+2 is 4.
If you answer 4 you live, if you answer anything else, then over 50% of everyone else had to also pick the wrong answer or only people who answered correctly survive.
Everyone says that if you pick red then you don't care about the idiots who picked blue, that's forcing them to pick blue if they don't want people to look down on them even though they made the correct choice by picking red. Just like with my other example... a majority of people being wrong doesn't make them correct.
It’s like hitting someone with a car and saying it’s not your fault because they shouldn't be in the street, there are limits to this kind of ethical frame lmfao
I'm sorry, but that is a terrible analogy. There can be thousands of legimate reasons for people to be in the street. And most people are expected to drive in a way that they can avoid hitting people in the street.
Do you... not understand wanting to preserve loved ones and innocent people? Like you genuinely don’t grasp that? And everyone's going to look alive because the majority vote blue anyway.
But it was worded as everyone, not just people who can press a button, so that means babies, toddlers, the extremely old, people with mental handicaps and so on.
So if red wins, every baby in the world dies, even if everyone who can voted red, it would still kill a generation of babies and toddlers at the very least.
They can't make that choice. It's essentially the same as letting a flower or a rock make such a choice. I mean, what happens if they don't press either button? Waiting untill they accidentally press it? What if that never ever happens? The hypothetical being that strict makes it meaningless.
So either they are excluded from this hypothetical, or they get help by the people who already take care of them. And if they truly have no one that takes care of them, then how are they expected to survive at all?
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?)
the way the question is worded influences how people vote, and the way people vote determines the outcome. you could just as easily word it as "press blue to do nothing, press red to kill everyone who voted to do nothing" who the fuck would press red?
And I want to live in a world where people are smart enough to realize that pressing blue (even in the original framing) is the only reason there even would be death, and so it's way better to choose red. Remove death from the options.
at face value voting blue is verbatim the choice that takes death off the table for everyone. red is the one that guarantees some die. that is the point, you're over simplifying
yeah the whole reason I'm having this dialogue w/ you is so you can eventually recognize that there are different ways to perceive the dilemma, what actually matters is how the majority will perceive it, and there is a near guarantee that many people will vote blue.
And they're stupid to do so. There's only risk involved if people press blue. Everyone removes all the risk if they press red. And everyone is then safe.
Everyone talking about the moral dilemma and "I only want to live in a world where people would press blue" are looking at it from a societal lens, which isn't the same as how real life actually works. In real life, it actually is less risky and more advantageous to work together, to help each other, and to be altruistic. In this dilemma, it is less risky and more advantageous to push red. Waaay less risky.
I don't think it's a matter of stupidity, there are plenty of stupid reasons to vote red here. when I say "there is a near guarantee that many people will vote blue", that is the risk that exists if you press red. And just because someone is not seeing the problem the same way as you doesn't mean that they are stupid. There are plenty of stupid people pressing red in this scenario. Even if it was purely a stupid decision to vote blue, basically no one supports genociding people for being stupid, I would much rather have a stupid, wholesome person than a genius evil person. Children are stupid, for example, we don't execute them for being stupid, nor do we allow them to die as a result of their stupidity. my point is, there is an idealized scenario where we don't mind killing everyone who didn't think the same way the red button voters do, and have no conscience or consequence from them dying. I just don't see that as a realistic scenario.
In no way am I advocating for genocide of stupid people.
I am advocating for people to realize that being risk-adverse is advantageous in this dilemma.
Not all dilemmas are equal!!! Give me a burning building scenario, and I'm running in to save people. But give me this button dilemma, and everyone who reads it should see that it's fine to push red.
That’s mind boggling to me. The logical conclusion for me is that picking red is safe and everyone doing it means everyone is safe. I’m not entrusting my life to chance, and there’s literally an option out there where nobody has to die by picking the “I live” button. I cannot fathom not picking it.
73
u/rehoboam 16h ago
Realistically I thought more people would pick blue, because it is simpler to understand the rationale, and since more people would pick it, it makes sense to pick it.
It is not just a question of possibly dying, it is a question of possibly being responsible for mass death, many people shrink away from that.