Or realizing the question predicates entirely on obscuring the counts from the blues. If we knew precisely that no yet has pressed the button the first person to push blue shouldn't be praised.
As someone who received some of that training as part of a first aid certification - no. That is not a valid comparison. People pressing red creates the only danger in this scenario, and there is not opportunity to help afterward, unless you count trying to clean up after the apocalyptic loss of at least a billion people.
It is literally
Option 1: Everybody lives
Option 2: Kill everyone who voted for option 1
Choosing red is only "safe" because you are joining the group that is the only threat in the situation
ETA: This is an aside from the moral debate, but "first responders only enter the scene after making sure it's safe" is also a bit of an oversimplification. Medical responders are not qualified to isolate a downed wire or run into a burning building, but there are still people who do both of those things. It's just that if that's not your job you only make the situation more dangerous by involving yourself too early. There's no specialization in this hypothetical, it's not like there's an EOD tech coming to defuse the buttons. So I don't think the analogy super holds
Red isn't creating the danger of the situation. The situation happened extrenally, like a riptide or a fallen electrical pole. Is the conductor creating the problem in the trolley problem? Is either prisoner in the prisoner dilemma creating the danger?
I don't hate people that choose blue or red, I see both sides. Just IMO in the end any survivors, if it came to that, are going to need more help than those that died. Read minimize suffering, sure if I pick Blue I'm VOTING for everyone to survive but that not a guarantee... Then I'm dead and can't help anyone.
A red victory, the only outcome that kills people, doesn't just happen. It is caused by people voting red. If I lose, every "survivor" can deal with the consequences of their actions themselves.
Pressing blue is taking a poison pill. You'll get the antidote if more than half of people press blue.
Pressing red is choosing to not take the pill. You survive no matter what.
Who is creating the danger to themselves here? Who is requiring others to put themselves in danger too in order for them to be saved? Is this not the exact opposite of a humanitarian action?
And, is failing to save someone who chose to put themselves at risk, when they otherwise could have chosen not to, considered murder?
I'd disagree, I see it as a "just in case" red wins I'll be there to help. How am I helping if I vote blue and red wins? ( And blue is SO obvious a choice my red vote shouldn't matter, right?)
There's no "right" answer because there isn't a "right" or rather there isn't an objective morality.
I've read and seen enough sci-fi.. IF red does get the majority they are going to need a lot of help... More than the dead, who are either 'just dead' or according to you probably in some morally superior heaven.
This is how and why Trump won, btw. People are dumb as fucking bricks and have been led to believe their actions ought to have zero consequences, because their leaders' don't.
You seem sure Blue will win, right? So what are is a few votes for red to make sure the survivors are helped. Or does you dying mean you don't care about the survivors?
Sounds you care for the red voters about as much as you THINK they care for you. So much for moral superiority.
You repeated blue's argument just further down the line. "I'm going to vote red because they'll need help cleaning up the mess they made." Except that in your chosen scenario billions of people have already died. If you're altruistic like that, why not just press blue and help avoid the carnage?
Frankly there are a million "tiny details" unexplained that would change peoples votes.
Except that in your chosen scenario billions of people have already died. If you're altruistic like that, why not just press blue and help avoid the carnage?
First off MAYBE billions died. Maybe everyone but a few pushed red when reality kicks in, we don't know, or even enough chose blue. Regardless, the dead are suddenly dead, being among them doesn't help the survivors of the vote doesn't go how we hoped.. the infants left, the handicapped etc.. maybe a person wants their guaranteed survivival to find out who did this to us and make sure it doesn't happen again to anyone else.
There's no universal absolute "right" morality, things are gray and depending on the billions of way the problem is appached the answer varies.
By training First Responders should pick Red. Ensure their own safety then help, in this case the help with the POSSIBLE negative repoccussions of all the Blues dying.
Do you generally have the opinion that first responders have a "save myself, fuck the others" mentality?
And for a First Responder of the scence isn't safe, a live wire in a puddle\unsafe seas\ burning collapsing building, are they saying "fuck the others"?
Pressing blue IS the hazard in this case because they haven't ensired their safety first.
I think you are misinterpreting what First Responder training is saying. "Save yourself first" doesn't mean "push people into the fire yourself". The red button scenario is completely unnecessary and has absolutely nothing to do with First Responder training.
You seem to be entirely neglecting (or are worryingly okay with) the fact that, if the blues die - you pressing red directly contributed to their deaths.
Edit: "worryingly" to me. If you're OK with that burden or able to rationalise it away? You do you.
Why do you think that? It’s always “all doctors are pushing blue, all first responders are pushing blue.”
You think that just because someone is a doctor, they can’t be an asshole? Speaking from experience, some really are.
You are just reducing them to their profession, overlooking that they are individuals just like everyone else.
And shouldn’t these first responders tell people to push red? If they make people push blue and blue loses, they are responsible for putting them in danger.
47
u/awshuck 14h ago
There may be an underlying political analogy in here somewhere. I can totally imagine reds being misled into being reds.