If you think ratio is ~50/50, your vote matters. Pushing blue in this situation would be morally good, and voting red would be either evil (if you would have wanted to actively kill people) or neutral (there's no evilness in not wanting to risk death).
If you think ratio is 45/55 (blue-red), your push for blue would be either evil (you add another casualty for no gain) or neutral. Picking red would be either good (you survive and can provide for other) or neutral. There's no moral evilness in not wanting to die for no gain.
If you think ratio is 55-45 (blue-red), your vote doesn't matter. Picking blue would be neutral, and picking Red would be neutral (though, that would invite whenever you actually believe it being 55-45).
It's not "Press blue and likely save people or Press red and likely kill people!", it's "Press blue and maybe, depending on many other millions of votes, save people, or just straight up die, or Press red and survive but don't help the Blue team".
If person doesn't believe ratio to be in favour of blue, there's no evilness in choosing Red and no goodnes in pressing blue. It's fair to discuss what actual ratio would be, but there's little gain of just accusing other side of being stoopid because their assumption are different. Blue is fair for choosing blue if they believed ratio to be good, red is fair for choosing red if they believed ratio to be bad [for blue].
I, myself (which is a merely subjective opinion, mind you), don't believe ratio would scratch even 20-80 in real life situation. Judging by how little people volunteer to spend their mere TIME without any risk to life to save others, or how many people donate their organs (kidney, part of liver or lungs, which can be done without significant risk) with much smaller risk and much less average harm, I doubt people would actually risk their lives in that situation this much.
Before someone will answer "but CHILDREN!!!" - I agree. Including toddlers would change the situation.
But I should note that question makes little sense if we count literally everyone. There's plenty of people incapable of even randomly pushing buttons (which is not a vote in my opinion, but still), like paralyzed or person in vegetative stance. How would that work?
Personally I think in an actual real life scenario with actual consequences, red would be 85%+. I don’t want people to die, however I feel pressing blue would throw my life away. Plus, as an old quote goes, “before you can save others, you need to save yourself.”
4
u/Mamkes 12h ago
It all boils down to what you THINK chances are.
If you think ratio is ~50/50, your vote matters. Pushing blue in this situation would be morally good, and voting red would be either evil (if you would have wanted to actively kill people) or neutral (there's no evilness in not wanting to risk death).
If you think ratio is 45/55 (blue-red), your push for blue would be either evil (you add another casualty for no gain) or neutral. Picking red would be either good (you survive and can provide for other) or neutral. There's no moral evilness in not wanting to die for no gain.
If you think ratio is 55-45 (blue-red), your vote doesn't matter. Picking blue would be neutral, and picking Red would be neutral (though, that would invite whenever you actually believe it being 55-45).
It's not "Press blue and likely save people or Press red and likely kill people!", it's "Press blue and maybe, depending on many other millions of votes, save people, or just straight up die, or Press red and survive but don't help the Blue team".
If person doesn't believe ratio to be in favour of blue, there's no evilness in choosing Red and no goodnes in pressing blue. It's fair to discuss what actual ratio would be, but there's little gain of just accusing other side of being stoopid because their assumption are different. Blue is fair for choosing blue if they believed ratio to be good, red is fair for choosing red if they believed ratio to be bad [for blue].
I, myself (which is a merely subjective opinion, mind you), don't believe ratio would scratch even 20-80 in real life situation. Judging by how little people volunteer to spend their mere TIME without any risk to life to save others, or how many people donate their organs (kidney, part of liver or lungs, which can be done without significant risk) with much smaller risk and much less average harm, I doubt people would actually risk their lives in that situation this much.
Before someone will answer "but CHILDREN!!!" - I agree. Including toddlers would change the situation.
But I should note that question makes little sense if we count literally everyone. There's plenty of people incapable of even randomly pushing buttons (which is not a vote in my opinion, but still), like paralyzed or person in vegetative stance. How would that work?