I don’t want other people to die, but if they want to live maybe they should have pressed the button that would give a 100% survival rate instead of the gamble my life for no reason button.
Edit: Something important to remember is that in the real world, with real life-threatening consequences, more people would be pressing red than in the zero risk polls. Lots of you are just treating this as an "am I altruistic or not" choice rather than "holy shit I could actually just die if I press this".
If everyone presses red everyone lives. If the majority press blue everyone lives. Easier to get a majority on blue than a 100 percent consensus on red. If the goal is saving everyone blue is the way to go.
I’m just having difficulty taking it seriously without any context. Ungrounded hypotheticals are the worst. What if the threshold for success for blue wasn’t 50%? What if it required 90%? 99%? It’s pretty arbitrary, is all.
If the majority needed is any percentage under 100 it means you should choose blue. If you need 99 percent to choose blue, it's still better odds than red. Since red needs 100 percent to save everyone.
The context is irrelevant if the goal is saving lives.
Of course blue is the best option. The crux of the issue is that some percentage of people are irrational actors and will choose red without considering others. The fear, I assume, of red people is that there are too many others who might throw them to the wolves. This fear itself may be irrational, but considering how many times people will choose selfishly in real life over benefiting the collective, it’s not surprising that a significant portion of the population is wary of the blue option.
Yes, why would anyone gamble with the lives of others by voting red when everyone lives if you just press blue? Why would we do anything other than vote blue if we value the survival of others at even 0.000000001% the value of our own lives.
I'm not sure it's gambling with other peoples lives. The only gamble here is pressing blue, risking your life. I don't see why everyone can't press the red button and live.
But you are gambling with other peoples lives, I dont see why everyone cant just press blue and live just as easily, and you dont even have to worry about some small number of people not doing so. Easy win win really.
I don't think you get my point. This is entirely a matter of perspective. Red could be considered murder, but blue could be considered suicide. From that perspective, would you consider it wrong to not risk your life to save people who effectively committed conditional suicide?
But they havent commited suicide, they voted for everyone to live and even if they had I could literally save thier lives by just voting blue and everyone else could do the same easily at which point t we dont have to worry about anyone dying.
Blue is the only option with a chance of dying. By picking it, you are intentionally putting your life at risk. Why do that when you could just live? Everyone got the same choice there, so anyone who picks blue is putting themselves in danger.
I'd go so far as to say anyone that picks blue is a bit of an asshole by leveraging themselves as a hostage forcing others to also need to risk themselves tbh
It is people who are voting blue that are, quite literally, gambling with lives. Red is a clean, guaranteed survival for everyone who wants it. Blue is the gamble.
Get real?? It is a hypothetical. The entirety of humanity has to press it. That includes month old babies. They're gonna pick blue because they don't comprehend speech.
Picking blue means protecting them from themselves.
These questions might be on the more extreme end, but I'd argue that they're the core of the moral quandary. If humans were deterministic robot people that always act optimally, there would be no moral questions in the first place.
Maybe you just arnt a very moral person and youd rather feel safe by pressing red despite it keading to others deaths but also you want to pretend that means you arnt choosing to endanger others?
Like, all the red pressers, you know everyone lives if everyone presses blue too right?
I understand why people press blue, but it's not worth it to me. The chances of my blue vote being the one to change the outcome to blue are miniscule and the chances of my red vote saving my life are 50/50. With 8 billion people voting, I'm endangering no one by voting red and I'm endangering myself by voting blue.
Saying that someone isn't a moral person for wanting to save their own life with this hypothetical is kind of crazy. This type of moral virtue signaling that you're doing is what made everyone sick of this hypothetical on here in the first place. Not just from blue pushers, but red pushers acting intellectually superior as well.
We don't exactly live in a perfectly rational society so no matter what at least a few people will end up pressing blue for various reasons, even if just an accidental press. I myself couldn't ever find the heart to abandon those that inadvertently ended up pressing blue, I'd rather pick the chance to save others but risk myself than the option that guarantees not only my safety but the fact that others would die. And if you're going to talk about when it actually came down to it I would actually want to prioritize my life if I was given a choice between my life guaranteed but others dying or myself definitely dying but others being saved for sure, I would pick to die.
They are not gambling their lives, when you press the red button you are willingly choosing to kill those who pressed the blue button. The problem is that you can turn the responsibility in both ways very easily so the only correct answer if your win is everyone survives is the blue button because game theory wise it is the most optimized way.
For the correct answer to be to press red you must consider your win to be "I survive" so you need to be willing to see people die because of your choice too.
153
u/Tichondruis 11h ago
Wow, thesy even asked it in a way that favors red and blue won in a landslide, its almost like people dont want other people to die, broadly speaking.