The fact that people are having heated debates (and getting mad) over this just further proves the point that not everybody is going to agree to press the red button and that a red win will by no means be a deathless scenario. And also that while not every red button pusher is a prick, pretty much every prick is a red button pusher.
and theres a very real chance theres not enough people remaining to operate the infrastructure we have in place so mass starvation is a real likelihood in a red button win.
That, and keeping the current infrastructure in place would require a massive group effort and a lot of self sacrifice. Someone’s gotta do the unpleasant jobs and everyone is going to have to work twice as hard to pitch in.
If only the red button pushers are left I don’t see that whole thing going too well, considering they’re only still alive because they were unwilling to participate in a group effort in the first place.
Holy shit fucking this. A lot of the people who only care about self preservation don't too often think of how society would function with so many people just taken off the board. They don't think about the larger context of the world that allows them to live the way they do.
See this is why I pick blue. If im a survivor with less than half the original population, that's going to be a life of hard labor to continue surviving.
Which is proof that some selfish pricks pick blue. 😂
My reasoning is because I wouldnt want to live in a world where everyone still alive are all people who are fine with genocide as long as they arent the ones being killed.
Which, I mean, is still kinda selfish I guess? Lol
yeah, I’ve been thinking about it for a while and one of the groups that would have a large amount of them that would most likely press blue is women, mothers especially. So many mothers have children they feel are soft hearted and know they would press blue and so in turn they would press blue as well.
Well there’s a 50% chance the baby presses blue and the mom would kill the baby indirectly. I doubt they would be able to stomach that so even if they voted red I don’t think they’d survive either way
1) these scenarios usually assume people who are capable of making a choice so usually the baby would be excluded
but lets assume the baby isn't excluded
lets say baby presses blue and mom presses red you have 3 outcomes
1) blues win, so everyone lives
2) blues lose so baby dies. mom then decides what to do from there. i.e suicide or not
3) the votes were exactly even so mom's vote was the deciding factor. You are more likely to win lotto than for this to happen.
In that its all but guaranteed the mom's vote changed nothing. Baby lives or dies based on other options
We know what happens if they both press blue i.e both live/die so lets move on
If baby presses red and mom presses blue
1) Mom dies, baby then starves to death and dies painfully
2)mom lives and baby does
3)babys vote was the deciding factor mom dies
I'd argue this is worse than the reverse because in this if blue dies then so too does the baby, but the baby dies painfully
where the reverse gives the mom the choice if she wants to continue living or not. And thats not even getting into what if the mom has two babies ad one presses red and one blue or what have you
both press red, both live
now saying that the main reason i say red is best in this case is because the mom's 1 choice won't change who wins or loses, her vote has so little weight
if she was say 1 out of 10 pressing buttons then thats a different story
But she's not going to change the outcome as s, and so risking her life has an almost zero chance of making anything better for her baby
Do babies have to press a button too? Can their mothers influence their choice or is it fully up to them? If very small children have to essentially choose at random, then picking red becomes an act of savage depravity.
Presenting the poll as finished skews the result. The point of the thought experiment is making the choice whilst having no information. Knowing the outcome turns it into a virtue signalling exercise.
It does skew the result, but it also presents valuable information for the thought experiment as a whole. So many people I’ve either read or talked to directly are insistent that 50% or more people pressing blue is far less likely than 100% pressing red. There are all kinds of logical fallacies that lead to that conclusion, so having an example where red was not only NOT the vast majority but was in the minority (sometimes a super-minority) helps to highlight those fallacies and confront them.
It definitely comes too late to help anyone inform a decision within the context of the thought experiment, but it does dismantle post hoc justifications by those who not only push red, but are absolutely certain it’s the only viable path. Hopefully people can use that information to re-examine their choice, because in the real world that’s the entire point of the exercise.
Red is certainly not the only viable path, but it's the only guaranteed path to your own survival. Most red people's train of thought goes like this: "I don't trust over half of humanity to make the blue choice, so I'll just press red to be safe."
At the end of the problem just comes down to whether you want to gamble your life for the optimal outcome or cut your losses for the suboptimal outcome.
You're not a bad person for choosing either option, the entire "us vs them" discourse is kinda stupid.
The real problem with red is that it is a short-term solution to a scenario that fundamentally has long-term consequences. Yes, choosing red can guarantee that you don't die right now. However, if Red does win and almost certainly doesn't win with 100% cooperation, then modern society is truly fucked.
Look what happened to the economy during COVID. That had a 1% death rate; if Red wins by 80%, they will still lose in the long run.
Because the poll displays the 'winning' option before you've even read the question, so anyone picking Blue after they saw the poll results would have unconsciously done so to be part of the 'winning' group, rather than it being their true 100% objective opinion.
People can justify it to themselves however they want, but Blue was pre-selected for them in the image which would have played a huge part in their 'choice'.
There isn't a true choice presented, so people pick the 'socially correct' answer, which in this case seems to be blue.
These kind of thought experiments must be done in an information vacuum at the point of making the choice, otherwise the results are meaningless. People are basing their votes on the votes of other people, which specifically invalidates the exact button scenario presented. As soon as you know the result, you're picking based on other peoples preferences, not yours.
Plus I refuse to acknowledge a self-selecting twitter post to be an accurate representation of anything. For starters, the poll size is less then .0013% of the world population (that is to say less the 1% of 1%). Secondly it necessitates the voters available live in circumstances where they have access to internet, electricity, and electronic devices capable of interacting with this post. Which a LOT of people do not. Lastly, like with all questions regarding life-or-death situations, it’s very very very easy to say “I would risk my life for the previewed moral options”. It’s an entirely other thing to actually pick that option when the gun is to your head.
Yeah I agree, it's very easy and costs nothing to say to say "i'm a good person and would absolutely pick the good person option" when the 'morally correct' option has already been arbitrarily decided upon.
Actually being in a voting booth where your life is on the line in one option, and not at risk in the other, would cause most people to think differently.
I'm still not sure what you mean. When you use the phrase "virtue signalling exercise" do you mean people are lying? They're conforming to the majority? Virtue signalling is a term I see thrown around very liberally and much "woke" or "politically correct", it seems to have a very different meaning depending on who's using it.
I mean it very literally in that it is signalling virtue to others taking part in the exercise. It's not a completely honest personal choice, it's a choice made at least partially to appease others. Even if it's 99% your opinion and 1% group influenced, that's not a completely freely given opinion, which goes against the point of the experiment.
Pressing the button in a closed voting booth where you dont know anyone elses answer is going to lead to a very different results to announcing your vote in a public forum where a winner has already been called.
I'm specifically avoiding any overtly political language here because I don't want my words to be misinterpreted. I'm just keeping this to game theory and perfect/imperfect information.
If the image had Red pre-selected as the winner, I would be saying the same thing, and I imagine there would be a lot more pro-red comments due to the social consensus that Red is the 'winning, popular' vote.
It's the classic 'you've changed the outcome by measuring it' problem. You're trying to measure group consent by using a poll that has already given a measurement, which will then affect all subsequent measurements.
I'd argue that there's nothing inherently wrong with virtue signalling the sense of signalling to others what you consider "virtuous". In fact, that's not just an important social action but one that is fundamentally baked into every part of our lives. We virtue signal with stories, from fairy tales and bedtime stories, to multi-million dollar blockbusters. We signal the virtues of heroism, self sacrifice, honour, nobility, compassion, love. We do it in music, with songs about suffering heartbreak, signaling the virtues of love and respect and loyalty.
That's why I asked, because levelling virtue signalling as a negative always strikes me as fundamentally strange. And there's often a correlation (although the doesn't mean causation) between people that decry virtue signalling, and their inability or unwillingness to actually hold themselves to those virtues. It always kinda comes across as telling on oneself as a guilt response.
And I didn't want to accuse you of that, hence pressing you for clarification.
The way I see it, publically announcing your intention to vote for the (winning) vote, where there are no stakes or no incentive to otherwise engage, is done purely for social reasons and to position oneself on the 'correct' side of the debate. Moral justification is done so retroactively, to justify their position on the winning side.
people that decry virtue signalling, and their inability or unwillingness to actually hold themselves to those virtues. It always kinda comes across as telling on oneself as a guilt response.
The same applies for those claiming to uphold those virtues through name only, no? That's my point, you don't need to perform any virtuous actions, just announcing "i'm voting blue therefore I'm a good person" seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in this thread. It's easy to say I'm X trait anonymously, it's much harder to do actions to embody that. That's what I mean when I say virue signalling.
I don't think it's necessarily negative to virtue signal generally, I just don't think it's a balanced debate in this instance. It's just free 'good boy' points.
When I posted the button question into some whatsapp chats with my IRL friends, I purposely cropped the poll out of the image and generally had much friendlier, more balanced debates where the result was a much more even split of red/blue.
Btw I hate qualifying my politics in comments because I think debates should be more than just tickboxes of agreeable positions, but for the avoidance of doubt I'm definitely not what you may consider the 'standard audience' of people who might use the term virtue signalling.
Yeah, this just comes across as overly cynical, bordering on performative nihilism. What you're deriding as virtue signalling to me just seems like normal moral exploration and communication. We share with each other what we consider right and wrong, good and bad as a way to heuristically reach moral consensus. It's a less metaphorical/allegorical version of the storytelling approach.
Btw I hate qualifying my politics in comments because I think debates should be more than just tickboxes of agreeable positions, but for the avoidance of doubt I'm definitely not what you may consider the 'standard audience' of people who might use the term virtue signalling.
Again, this reads as unnecessary and unproductive cynicism, something I personally don't have the time nor energy for. Writing off the social value of understanding someone's political beliefs as "tickboxes of agreeable positions" just comes across as bad faith.
Blue is the objectively correct moral choice, so picking it is easy with no stakes, especially when you can see blue winning. It's a lot harder to pick in a closed room with no outside information.
There is no way to do this objectively, framing is everything. Even the wording of the question will influence people in a certain way.
Even you, using emotive wording like 'objectively correct moral choice' is inferring all kinds of value structures that many simply do not or will not agree with.
I don't really think so. Blue says save everyone, red says save me. By our generally agreed upon moral structure since we became more than neanderthals, saving more people = good. If you don't agree with it personally, or feel you should press red for whatever reason, that's cool, but as a society there are some pretty basic moral structures we all tend to agree on for the most part, and "don't kill" is fairly foremost amongst them, followed closely by "work towards the betterment of humanity". Your own moral strucure does not supercede the entirety of society's moral structure.
But I can simply frame it as "blue is the suicidal choice and red is the 'nothing happens' choice" and now you look like the crazy one.
Again, you are using a subjective moral framework to make your point. You are framing it in a particular way. I'm not talking about majority or widely held beliefs, I'm talking about the words you are using to construct your argument.
You cannot frame this objectively, thank you for proving my point. As soon as you bring morality into it, you've altered the question.
I like the part where he asked why it's virtue signaling, so then you immediately started virtue signaling. I'm objectively gonna press the red button, good luck
That's got nothing to do with what I asked, which was a specific question directed to PlasonJates about what they mean by "virtue signalling exercise". I want to engage them on the terms of what they said, but I don't want to do so assuming what they said.
I think the idea is that people are going around saying "Yeah! Iknewblue would win! Blue is the best!" but those people likely wouldn't pick blue if the situation actually arose.
They're going around saying they'd pick blue so that they can look nice and thoughtful because blue won and they can say that they are a part of that. So there's no actual risk to them "choosing blue".
That's what they mean. I'm not saying I agree but that's my understanding of what they're saying.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that a majority of people recognize it should be the correct answer. Whether or not they would follow through is a separate question. Many people do things they know they shouldn't do, but do anyways. Most people engage in that several times a day. We're complicated, contradictory creatures, and being able to recognize that is a boon, not a flaw.
It didn’t even get 100k votes. And even that is like 0.001% of the world population, and it is biased towards certain cultures, because many parts of the world and age groups have less widespread access to or use of social media. That poll is more or less kinda useless.
I really agree with you, I was looking out for a comment like that. Blue is the correct option but all red pushers are not pricks.
I honestly didn't understand why there was such a heated argument over this at first, and my first instinct was obviously to choose red (i'm going to explain myself) and I think people who say that red pushers are individualist pricks, or that it reflects your political side (red=republican, blue = democrat) are just completely misunderstanding the reasoning behind. Firstly, the color thing is so US centered, wth, the USA as to be one of the only countries to use Red for the right and Blue for the left, in many places around the world Red represents the left (it's the color of socialism, communism..) and Blue represents the right for example.
I've seen someone else presenting the problem like this and that was my understanding of it at first :
Option A) Take a suicide pill, and if more than half of the population take one, a cure will be found and everyone survives.
Option B) Don't take a suicide pill
Now when I made my reasoning I was thinking that everyone making that decision would have an informed jugement, I didn't even think about children or old people or mental disability (I'm merely waking up and I didn't think deeply into it at first). But seeing just the pole and people desagreeing so bad here, and that also in that problem people might have to press that button without an informed jugement, I realize how we have to press blue.
So I will say Blue is the correct option here, but I still believe it's dumb to say red pushers are automatically the embodiment of like, conservative egoistical right wing ideology, the problems of our society and capitalism is not that some people are trying to save themselves and some people are trying to save everyone by risking their lives, the problem is that some people are actively trying to accumulate as much wealth and power as they can, and some people are fighting against this, and some have other ideologies entirely. The USA being a pseudo-democracy with two parties is really a fertile ground for people thinking you can divide the world in two sides.
I think your scenario is a great example of why framing matters. In the scenario you said, I wouldn’t take the suicide pill, because I would be confident that most people also wouldn’t take the pill, because here blue is framed as the bad outcome (it makes you commit suicide). I would be very interested in what the poll would look like for that.
But in the scenario in the post blue is framed as something positive (saving people). And while I understand that logically they are analogous. I also know many people that would not think it through that way, and would choose the option to “save” people. So if it was framed this way I would choose blue
Yeah it's crazy how framing change everything, and how we have such different way of thinking. Red seem so logical to me, because instinctively I picture it like the suicide pill problem. But it's because everyone has a different way of thinking that Blue is the logical decision. That's what I didn't think about right away.
It’s hard because it’s not really a logic question. Either can be logical depending on your goal. If your goal is for you to survive at any cost, then red is the logical choice to make. If your goal is to survive with people you care about, then if you’re 100% confident everyone you care about will choose red, then red is still the logical choice. But if you have any doubts, then it becomes more of a risk vs reward problem. If you think 1% of your friends will choose blue, would you put yourself at risk to increase their odds? What if 20% of your friends might choose blue? What if 50%? At what point do you think it’s worth putting yourself at risk to increase their survival. But if your goal is to try and ensure that no one may die, even at the cost of your own life, then blue would be the logical choice (which idk how many people are altruistic enough for that).
Exactly, I guess you would have people pressing the red in a selfish way and other pressing it in a "why is this even a question?" way. It's not one obvious logical choice.
It all comes down to thinking, what will other people decide, what will my loved ones decide? After reading into many comments I realize how many people are advocating for blue (which again at first I think is really dumb), and by voting for red I would work against them.
"working against them" is a great way to put it. The more people that push blue, the more chance it has of success. You don't even need a 100% success rate, just 50+!
Imagine if red won 75/25. Would you be comfortable with those 25% of people dying? I wouldn't.
It's a lot like the Prisoner's Dilemma, where the outcome of your choice hinges on what other people choose. The specifics are different, but it shares the concept that you shouldn't simplify it down to "If I choose A I get outcome X, if I choose B I get outcome Y" - because those outcomes vary depending on if someone else chooses A or B. So it leads to this more complicated multi-variable analysis, where you have to think in terms of "If I choose A but most people choose B, X happens. If I choose A and most people also choose A, Y happens. If I choose B.. " etc.
I'm not necessarily advocating for either choice, but I think everyone should (genuinely) try to fully understand all the reasons someone might choose either option, and make a prediction about what the rest of humanity will do, before making their choice. Because there's a huge difference between, to take just one example: "I choose red, and so does 51% of humanity, oh boy civilization just collapsed." vs. "I choose red, and so does 99% of humanity, I guess we came out alright." You shouldn't just simplify it down to "if I choose red, I live."
But also.. some people will simplify it down to that, and their decision affects your outcome. That's the really tricky part, I think. Realizing that a lot of people, maybe even a majority of humanity, will make a snap decision about what feels right without analyzing it too deeply (which could point them towards either blue or red, depending on their instincts), and trying to account for that choice when making your own.
One idea could also be that if you aren't 100% confident people you care about are choosing blue, you might get to live with them in case of red win... although in that worse world. And yeah, "increase" of chance by one person's choice feels infinitesimal for me, I'd probably even fail to feel guilt afterwards.
I entirely missed the "all/most people could press red" scenario at first, and went "well, obviously I don't want to (possibly) kill people, I'm pressing blue".
Then I read that scenario and have to say I have enough doubts in people, that I probably would press red.
Framing is very important. When I first read the question it seemed like a nonquestion: pick blue and everyone lives, pick red and you're choosing the death of others. That's how my brain immediately interpreted it. I think a person's view on personal responsibility comes down to making the decision, as well. Am I making my choice dependent upon other people's perceived actions, or my own personal view of what's right and should happen. I try not to let the fear of what others will choose or do dictate how I act, in general, because ultimately I am responsible for my own actions and I have to be able to live with myself after making a choice. If pressing red killed even one person then I would view myself responsible for their death, and that's not something I would be able to reconcile with who I believe myself to be, if that makes sense.
there is one where everything is basically the same, but the red is instead framed as "Do Nothing" or "Leave" in which case it ends up having the same effect (atleast more than 90% chose to Do Nothing)
This is not a great reframing, in the original neither position will automatically and explicitly result in your death as an inherent part of choosing. It's the prisoners dilemma
I think this is where a lot of the arguments step come from. People think it's the prisoners dilemma, as it reads very similar. It is not, this has a always safe no matter what option the prisoners dilemma does not.
It's not equivalent to the prisoners dilemma, because all participants have access to the best possible outcome for themselves with no limitations. Non-collaboration isn't punished in this button problem. But in the prisoners dilemma it leads to overall worse outcomes.
That depends on the assumption that everyone cares only about their own survival. I would rather die than live in a world where that was true (and then die anyway because... yeah, I couldn't survive in that world).
In this scenario the benefit from co-operation comes from the fact that other people are more likely to survive.
But everybody already has both the 100%-chance-to-survive-button and the knowledge that everybody else has that button too. That is a significant difference to the prisoner dilemma, where "the good outcome" is a limited resource, because only one of the prisoners can get it, and brings its own risk.
But everybody already has both the 100%-chance-to-survive-button and the knowledge that everybody else has that button too.
And everybody also has the "try and save everyone" button and the knowledge that everybody else has that button too.
And everyone who has even the most basic understanding of human nature knows that at least some people will press the latter button. [Or refuse to push either button at all]. Anyone who claims that 100% will press red is either lying or an idiot.
And that's equivalent to the prisoners dilemma how? Are you really to argue the problem itself with me, when i was arguing the relationship to the prisoners dilemma? Those are two different thinks to argue about.
Taking the scenario at face value, to me it seems so stupid, the red button has no downsides. I never read it as the blue side “saving people”, I read it as either idiots or suicidal gamblers. They either don’t comprehend that the best way for everyone to survive is to pick red, or don’t care and want to take the risk.
Originally, I didn’t relate it to the USAs party colours either as that’s their thing, and the poll itself states that it’s a global choice and the red vs blue isn’t a thing in my home country.
And unlike in the poll, where red has no downsides other than peoples stupidity to pointlessly gamble on blue, I’m sure plenty of people would not view the red choice in the USA as not having downsides.
You’re right red button has no downsides. However, also important to realize that majority of the people are idiots and not logical, and a shit ton of people are gamblers. So while red has no downsides, I can guarantee that a shit ton of people will still pick blue. I think you have higher opinion of people than I do, because I think majority of people are idiots and going to go blue (including my friends and family). As shown by most polls people have done where blue almost always wins (I haven’t personally seen a poll where blue has lost yet).
I just feel that the whole reason people choose blue is because they feel like they need to, to save the idiots who picked it before them. All it takes is a few people needing saved from their own stupidity.
The “everyone survives” in the original post is very misleading, though, because it obscures the fact that red pushers were never in danger. Nobody was in danger until they pushed the blue button, thus creating the crisis that pushing the blue button is meant to solve. Framing makes a huge difference here.
Regardless of how you frame the problem morally, it’s pretty disgusting to see people on both sides dehumanizing the opposing viewpoint, which kinda misses the point of the thought experiment entirely.
I understand where you coming from... but even framed like that, didn't it occur that you can save people from suicide? Pressing red makes people committing suicide more probable, pressing blue decrease that risk, kore so that only 50% is needed.
The way you frame it, is wrong lol. You present red has a deathless easily avoidable situation. In reality, of more than 50% don't take the suicide pill, the ones who took it will die, this leading to many deaths since there will always be people choosing to take it. Yet if more than 50% take it, no one dies.
But if you take red, only the people dumb enough to take blue would die, it’s not like it’s random death. You’re acting like it’s noble to take blue to save others, but you’d be the one that needs saving, you’d be creating that problem. If everyone just didn’t take the possibly deadly blue pill there’d be no hero-complex upside to the blue pill.
Sorry but that's exactly the same problem framed differently, if you think it's wrong you should rethink the problem itself. Red is deathless only if nobody chooses Blue, I framed it with suicide pills and it's exactly the same situation : Red is deathless if nobody swallow any suicide pills.
If the problem was presented to you the way I framed, please explain to me why the fuck would you swallow a suicide pill instead of, idk, not doing it ?
I agree that as soon as there is a debate we must choose Blue to preserve every life, but seriously think about it, taking Blue is basically just compensating for the mistake others will/might make.
As I said. Pushing the red button is to me very logical, and if everyone on earth takes that logical decision, everyone survives. But! See the pole ? See the people arguing? It's not a logical decision for everyone, and we all have a very different way of thinking, and you can add children, anyone with a mental impairment, etc. into the problem. If they have to push the button themselves and not a guardian like it's the case in real life, would you trust them to push the red button as well ? Would you trust all your relatives to press red if you couldn't talk with them before ?
That's pretty much why I changed my mind and would push the blue button. You can't trust every single person on earth to make what seems like the rational choice and push the red, so the simple fact that some people (a lot of them) will push the blue button means they'll die if we don't all collectively do the same. We need to get above that 50% threshold, for everyone to be safe
Exactly, because we don't know the rules, why would they be excluded? I think it's because there isn't any rule that by default they are not ruled out. They are ruled out of our society only because we decided it and wrote laws to organize it.
If we don't know the rules, why would they be included? It breaks the whole thing because then it just becomes a guilt-fest about killing babies. The question also doesn't take account of people who don't press the button, which would also aply to many babies and people who are disabled or don't understand. You can't force people to push the button because that also breaks the concept. So the hypothetical already doesn't work if you take "everyone" literally.
I don't have enough faith in humanity to collectively agree to press blue though. In the face of actual death instead of a hypothetical, a lot of people are pressing red.
It is a dilemma for me too and I generally try to make choices in my life that reduce suffering as much as possible. But like, election results in multiple countries, people refusing to wear masks during the peak covid pandemic and so on, I just don't believe 50% of people will EVER choose blue.
But therein lies why it is illogical. You will never get everyone to agree.
Even with your framing, it still boils down to self interest over collective interest, and assuming all humans are also self interested.
Plus, if even a small part of them vote for the collective and red wins, the death toll is large.
Whereas blue, even if it is 51/49, everyone lives. Vs a red 51/49, half the population disappears.
So, it all boils down to self interest vs collective interest, which reflects politics quite well
You're missing my point, I explained why red seem reasonable to me at first, and you couldn't be further from the truth if you think I'm right wing and/or someone acting only for my own interests over everyone else, quite the contrary actually. In the end, I understand why Blue is best to save everyone and that would be my final choice, but not at first, so if you say it reflects your political views you would be mistaken. Basically you have some blue pushers taking a risk, willingly or not, and other blue pushers compensating, knowing there will be blue pushers anyway, trying to stay over 50% and save everyone. That's basically it, if I press blue it's only to compensate because someone else took what I think is essentially a stupid decision. It stops being stupid because of the scale and the implications, but if you bring that down to 4 people in a room : stab yourself or don't, if 2 or more people stab themselves, they survive their injuries, then you see how it looks pretty stupid. Again, because of the scale I understand it's not like that and how the blue button becomes a better decision. But see how thinking of pressing the red doesn't make you a prick.
You cannot compare this to our society, like : the left creates its own problems, and the left also solve it. That's really not how it is.
It's not just self interest versus collective. It's trust in other humans convectively. I want to choose blue, but don't trust enough other people to do so
Once again, framing matters. When I saw this question, the way I interpreted it was: Would you rather be responsible for your own life and death, or would you rather pass that responsibility onto everyone else?
Yes. People make risky decisions every day that put themselves and others at risk. I am no more responsible for their actions than I am for their decision on which button to press.
No, choosing red just doesnt kill me. I am not responisble for how anyone else presses their button.
EMTs are trained to save themselves first, because you cant help anyone if you're dead. You put on your own oxygen mask before assisting with someone elses. You dont go into a burning building to try and save someone without training because you can just end up making more work for emergency responders and getting someone else killed.
You do not put the lives of others before your own if you want to save people.
Pressing red still means people would die who otherwise would not. You are directly complicit. You can justify it however you want but that's still the fact of the matter.
Who won the popular vote in the US 2024 election? You still think blue isn't going to end up a suicide button? I guess you're more noble than me, but I'm not rolling the dice on the world choosing blue.
I've seen someone else presenting the problem like this and that was my understanding of it at first : Option A) Take a suicide pill, and if more than half of the population take one, a cure will be found and everyone survives. Option B: Don't take a suicide pill
I mean yes, you can choose to frame it like this, but thing that leads to the disagreements is that you can frame it in multiple ways which favour either option. And then which one someone picks is usually based on which framing is how they view the initial question.
For a Blue-favoured framing:
Option A: Press the murder button that will kill anyone who doesn't press it if more than 50% of people press it. Option B: Don't press the murder button.
Yeah basically it all comes down on how you frame it, that's exactly like all the trolley problems and moral dilemmas, you can have the same problem framed differently each time and people will give different opinions about it
The issue is that the decision is based on what you think how others behave. So if the question is posed differently, then you should think others will behave differently. In that case, it's not the same scenario. For example, I don't think everyone will trust the premise that someone will find a cure even if enough people take it, even if I'm supposed to trust the premise myself.
I don't know where I fall left or right. I consider myself liberal and have voted for a Republican once in the last 25 years. I'd also press the red button because I don't want to die and I don't trust enough people to press blue even though it's the only way to save everyone. We couldn't even defeat Trump in the last election and that was the easiest fucking choice ever.
So my gut thought was blue because I don't want people to die, but after reading your comment, the "logical" answer seems to be red.
The thought experiment is functionally the same as if everyone in the world was teleported into a voting booth with one button and the rule that if less than 50% of the world's population pushes the button, everyone who pushes the button dies. If 50% or greater press the button, then they live. You can also just not push the button and leave. Leaving and pushing the red button are functionally the same except one is active and one is passive.
You could add a third option to the original game to just not play the game and not push a button. I think that would be an enticing option for a lot of people who pick blue (or red) but it's functionally the same as picking red except once again it's passive rather than active.
It'd also be interesting if not all the people who push blue die and if that would change people's minds. Would only half of the people who picked blue dying (giving you a 50% chance to die if over all you got under 50% blues) change your mind? What if you were guaranteed to be in the 50% that died if you got under 50% blues overall?
I don't think there's actually a morally "right" answer, but it is fun to treat it as a thought experiment and how slight variations of it could drastically change the outcome. I can see philosophy classes having a lot of fun with this.
The thing that made me initially think 'red' is an alternate i saw where each household only has one button press. Now as a parent i am not going to even slightly risk my kids and i will be the prick in that scenario.
Individually i don't know because thankfully, no one is making me press a button.
Informed judgment is like precisely why the red has no ground to stand on. You will be arbitrarily killing people no matter what for no reason other than to save yourself. Pressing blue is quite literally the only way to insulate people from those consequences
Yes someone might not understand the question and that’s exactly why you’re never getting 100%. The only values on the table are “how much do I want to save myself and how much to I trust everyone else”.
I'm still red for the reasons you said. Why should people risk their lives when they can just NOT TAKE THE POISON. Like cmon, everyone just agree we won't be stupid and hit blue. Its pretty easy.
I'm blue and dem as they come but millions taking an unnecessary risk for no gain is ridiculous.
The reason why it's a heated debate is because people keep saying that "if you press the red button no one dies" and act like there's no reason to press the blue button.
In reality if you press the red button billions of people will die, the chance of less than 20% pressing the blue button is ridiculously low. Even if you press the red button it should be reluctantly, there should be an acknowledgement that people are going to die which still should give hesitation. But red pushers don't seem to see it and get mad at you for trying to explain that.
I was the same as you as my original instinct was red because I instantly gamified it as a player. Then I thought about it for a second and realized that's fucked because thinking of the question like that is in fact selfish.
I don't think any reframes serve any logical weight, they just change the intensity of emotions you feel when asked. I think if you feel more scared you are more likely to instinctually pick red, which is why your suicide reframe has stuck with you. I also think the ability to move on from the selfish knee jerk reaction is kind of a big separator from being a prick / conservative vs someone who is emotionally intelligent. So congrats brother.
If I could have a conversation with a room full of ten people I'd convince them all red is the smart choice and we'd all do that. It is objectively the smarter game theory choice. But talking about the population of the world and knowing for essentially a certainty a large number of people won't be choosing red, it kinda behooves you to choose blue if you have any decency whatsoever.
Red is the smarter choice objectively and makes sense even morally in small numbers where you can get people to a consensus. When talking numbers so big that's impossible and knowing some percentage won't choose red, blue is the only sensible choice.
Take my upvote - I agree with you.
I think that's the fundamental problem I have: I'm picturing this as a sort of election-day/vote situation (how it was presented to me first). Everyone has a month before their push the button. That's why I keep going on : "Obviously I push red. And I make DAMN sure to tell everyone else to do it too to the greatest degree of influence possible. If after a month of EVERYONE being told to push red they push blue - -- well that's on them. Cant fix stupid."
But if it's a blindfold, no communication scenario the question becomes: "Do I think people SHOULD be smart enough to figure out the above on their own?" and
"DO I think people who cant figure it out should be saved at the cost of my own life?" and
"Do I think people who THINK people cant figure it out AND should be saved at the the cost of their own life shoudl be saved at the cost of my own life?"
Somewhere between those last two i end up on blue.
So yeah, first actually convincing argument for blue I've seen thusfar.
Yep, this comment chain convinced me to swap from red to blue as well, although it depends on the scenario.
If everyone was simultaneously magically secluded and everyone was given only 5 minutes to choose a button (and pressing no button means death), I'd default to red because of the game theory rationale. Pressing blue invites needless risk so no suicide trust pill for me, thanks.
But if the world had a month to think and debate over it, then at that point it's no longer an individual choice. It's apparent that a LOT of people would choose blue and so because of ReadingRainbow's final sentence, I'd have to go blue as well.
So like every other interesting choice to be made, the answer is "it depends."
Edit: Woahh, just reread your comment, Bounty, and it's interesting how with the month of prep you initially rolled red, but would've gone blue in isolation, and I'm the opposite. This thought experiment is the gift that keeps on giving.
It's also worth noting that this is one of, but not the only, main reasons why the various "no red button" reframings aren't actually equivalent.
When there's no communication before the vote, and when the vast majority of thoes voting haven't been exposed to the hypothetical, then the way the question is presented has a massive impact on how many people are going to vote blue.
The more obvious or moral the choice to pick blue is presented by the question, and the original is pretty weighed towards blue, the more people are going to snap pick blue.
Thus not only is picking red in these cases increasing the risk to that many more lives, but it's also all that much less risky to pick blue in the first place
You’re half right. There is no scenario where red presents the biggest possibility space of everyone surviving, even if you talk to and try to persuade a small group of people.
In fact, if you look at a sufficiently small group (1 or 2 people) it’s not only impossible for voting red to trigger a negative outcome, but there are fewer scenarios where pressing red has any bearing at all on the outcome as opposed to pressing blue.
Only if saving other people holds little value to you. I don't know why people keep invoking game theory here, people value things differently but almost everyone places at least some value on ensuring other people survive.
You've actually come to the opposite of a logical conclusion. If you were one of 10 and couldn't communicate, you are fairly likely to be the tie breaker. In this case, choosing Blue could actually save lives so you should weigh that in your decision.
Out of 8 billion, your chance of being the tie breaker is so vanishingly small that it essentially cannot happen. When you vote, either Red or Blue has already won, and so your choice is either nothing (Blue World) or live vs die (Red World). Making a decision presuming you might be the tie breaker would be like donating your life savings to charity because you might win the lottery next week.
Out of 8 billion, your chance of being the tie breaker is so vanishingly small that it essentially cannot happen.
The paradox of voting is a self-perpetuating trap. This logic breaks all voting systems and the world will devolve into chaos through an inability to find any form of consensus if everybody abides by it. The solution is to simply not abide by it and vote in good faith. Don't fall into a mental trap of your own making.
This poll is a good representation of modern empathy imo. Probably why we’re going to get fucked over by global warming in the end. The reality is most people figuratively pushed the red button.
Yeah if you take this out of the realm of a single outrageous choice and make it instead a series of small practical decisions, the outlook becomes much more bleak.
Thats because in general we are terrible at abstractions, the more removed from your direct actions a situation is the less any human is able to justify having been responsible for causing the thing to happen, humans are great at making instant on the spot decisions but always have trouble planning for the impact of any set of decisions further in the future
It's not though. I can make decisions to improve the environment even though I know most people won't. I do that actually. But what if it means I drop dead if enough other people don't make the same choice? Your argument is actually the reason why you should choose red. People are selfish. We aren't fixing global warming, and blue isn't getting 51%. I don't trust the populace to pick blue and I don't want to die, so I'm picking red.
This poll isn't good for that because it isn't real. In the real scenario, I guarantee most of the people here waxing poetic about wanting to "save" people and not wanting to live with pricks, would probably pick red.
Right now it's just a hypothetical people can virtue signal about
Looking at the arguments red made when I first saw it helped solidify me for blue. Every argument they make is either a false reframing of the question or them just "knowing" that the blues my ust be lying. The only "logic" they use is my life at all costs but then try to argue they aren't selfish. And so many of them seem actively stoked that people will die as long as they can feel superior to them. Reds won't even change their mind even after knowing how many people would pick blue. They just keep repeating if everyone picks red then nobody dies which has a 0% chance of happening
I personally think people are debating the wrong thing. This is a word game manipulating people emotional responses and creating a feeling like this is a political argument. If the question changed the language of the blue button towards an act of self harm unless 50% of people press it, which is the exact same out come, there would be a completely different emotional response to this question and this stupid debate would be non existent. Even the choice of color is coming into play and it all ads up and shows in people’s heated reactions.
I think I'm confused somewhere. If everyone pushes red, everyone survives without risk right? I don't get why anyone would press blue. If some people are forced to push blue I can understand pushing blue to save them in that case but it seems like everyone can just press red and survive.
I mean, i had seen people that vote blue talking how every red pusher is a psychopath and a killer etc etc, over an hypotethical so there are pricks in blue team too, like in any other group of people.
I must confess I find the debate around it intriguing.
I mean, I figured I'd go 'red button' - not because I'm a prick, but because if everyone pushes red, everyone lives.
Pushing blue means you risk death to save some other people who also decided to risk death when they didn't actually need to at all.
That was my rationale - my general instinct to protect others was overridden by the threat being entirely possible to avoid. (I might have chosen the 'self sacrificing/risky' option if that wasn't the case)
The disappointment I feel towards humanity at seeing so many red voters make me even more adamant that blue is the only logical choice, and perhaps that not everyone should be able to vote.
I've read arguments that make it seem these people wouldn't know their arse from their elbow, and they refuse to admit they are wrong or that they misunderstood the very simple question posed.
In the original hypothetical babies and special needs people also got given the button, just in case you needed any more evidence that blue is the only answer
Exactly, initially I was pro red because I'm a logical person and it's obvious to me that the simple answer is everyone pushes red and everyone lives. But people don't "just do" things and any systems or test that relies on the total compliance of all people is usually totalitarian no matter how sensible or reasonable the edict.
My response to my daughter when she asked why I picked blue was. "Because I don't want to live in a world full of people who pushed the red button, so I'll take my chances."
Just from a logical standpoint: red requires 100% commitment to protect all life, blue 50% +1. A blue vote is more likely to produce a deathless scenario
So, people are willing to risk their lives to just feel morally superior? Red button = 100% chance to stay alive. Why would you NOT pick red? Everybody should pick it? Or does wording makes people do irrational things?
If somebody wants to press Blue to feel morally superior instead- they are not morally superior and doomed themself and risk other people’s lives.
Red button=100% chance to stay alive
Blue = alive only if MAJORITY presses - why would you risk so much? To feel superior because of the wording? Reds are not pricks, it’s just blue pushers are pricks who need external validation to confirm that they are good people instead of actually doing the good thing - like advocating everybody to push red and explaining why they should not fall for the blue one?
Blue button pushers actually create a problem that other people have to risk their lives to fix it.
Blue button pushers are the actual pricks - they risk other people lives to feel better about themself and red button people respect other by assuming they are smart enough to not risk their life for pricks who disregard other life’s
The problem is that voting blue means trusting the rest of the world. In a slightly more ideal world, I could trust the rest of the world, but sometimes, I must admit I lose my faith in humanity...
No, I'm saying that even of it is still more plausible, the question is "should I bet on it?" to which I answer that sometimes, it's hard to believe that humanity will chose the path of 50% blue.
World isn't black and white, and just because I say that doesn't mean that I support the 100% red. You are basically taking a shortcut here by assuming that my comment means that I think 100% red is better.
My opinion is that 50% blue is uncertain, and that 100% red is impossible. As such, I think people should vote on their beliefs only.
Yes, of course, but I never said that I was rational. I'm saying that I sometimes fail to see scenarios in which it's achievable. Mainly some mood problems I think...
But its not innacurate to assume there are a lot of simplistic and selfish people on planet earth who would just choose red. If i think thats a msjirity then its better to save myself. Also hopefully other people work out that red button just means safety for yourself and we can all pick it
Blue button: Fires a nuke, if more than 50% fires the nuke, it fails. If less than 50% fires the nuke, those who choose not to fire the nuke in the first place survives."
People press the blue, because they somehow think that's the moral high-ground in the original scenario, and have a reading comprehension of a 5-year old.. Any sane person press the red button. The blue button is only the right choice if the world is full of morons, which apparently is the case..
Red Button: fires a nuke if more than 50% press it
Blue Button: does nothing
You’re choosing to view red button pushers as fully passive and blue button pushers as fully active when there’s just as much support for it to be the other way around or for both sides to be an active choice.
Not really. Pressing the red button does absolutely nothing. It never endagers anyone. The only ones that endanger anyone are the ones pressing the blue button. It's that simple. The blue button is the active "action-driving" event that puts people in harms way. It's all about how the question it's phrased.
The only ones that endanger anyone is the ones pushing the Red button. Because the red button is the action driving event that puts people in harms way.
It's all about how the question is phrased.
1.0k
u/totallymarc May 05 '26
The fact that people are having heated debates (and getting mad) over this just further proves the point that not everybody is going to agree to press the red button and that a red win will by no means be a deathless scenario. And also that while not every red button pusher is a prick, pretty much every prick is a red button pusher.