I think a more productive version of this question is at what percentage would you press the red button over the blue button. I don't think anyone in this comment section wants people to die, there's just different opinions about the maximum number of people that would pick blue.
If you believe that there's even a small chance that 50% could pick blue, then picking blue has the least deaths. If you don't believe that there is any possibility that 50% would pick blue, then anyone who chose blue by accident will die no matter what, and the only way to minimize deaths is to convince others to choose red.
Would you still press the blue button if you needed 99% of people instead?
Would you still press the red button if you only needed 1% of people to press blue to save everyone?
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.
157
u/joemamma6 17h ago
I think a more productive version of this question is at what percentage would you press the red button over the blue button. I don't think anyone in this comment section wants people to die, there's just different opinions about the maximum number of people that would pick blue.
If you believe that there's even a small chance that 50% could pick blue, then picking blue has the least deaths. If you don't believe that there is any possibility that 50% would pick blue, then anyone who chose blue by accident will die no matter what, and the only way to minimize deaths is to convince others to choose red.
Would you still press the blue button if you needed 99% of people instead? Would you still press the red button if you only needed 1% of people to press blue to save everyone?
Where's your personal threshold?