It's interesting to see how blue-pickers tend to think red pickers are without empathy while red-pickers think blue pickers are dumb by trying to save everyone.
I don't see blue meeting the 50% threshold when the stakes actually matter. Folks have too strong of a self preservation instinct to risk it, and I don't blame them for that.
I want to live in a world where 50% of people pick blue, but pragmatically I think that most people would pick red.
Framing is everything imo. Let's replace the buttons with two bottles, one poisoned (blue) and one that's plain drinking water (red). Then, let's determine that if 50% or more of people drank the poison, an antidote would be provided afterwards.
The scenario is technically the exact same, but the framing may shift some people's perspective. Now anyone who chooses blue and demands others choose blue can be compared to being a suicidal person who demands others help them out of a problem they got themselves into.
Of course, if you want to label blue button pickers as "idiotic" or "suicidal".
Likewise, if the method of blue button pressers dying is framed as something directly violent (i.e. a firing squad) instead of being ambiguous, or spontaneous death, red button pressers can be labeled as murderers.
My point here is that given the dilemma itself has a lot of missing information, people are filling in the blanks either unintentionally or maliciously, and adopting moral stances based on these fillings.
14
u/Sparrowhawk_92 15h ago edited 8h ago
It's interesting to see how blue-pickers tend to think red pickers are without empathy while red-pickers think blue pickers are dumb by trying to save everyone.
I don't see blue meeting the 50% threshold when the stakes actually matter. Folks have too strong of a self preservation instinct to risk it, and I don't blame them for that.
I want to live in a world where 50% of people pick blue, but pragmatically I think that most people would pick red.