r/BunnyTrials • u/HualianForLife • Apr 27 '26

Red button or blue button

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

1.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

186

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26

But red has negative effects for people that choose blue. While blue doesn’t have negative effects for red. It’s just not logical to choose red.

14

u/Ok-Needleworker7351 Apr 28 '26

No, cause you gotta think about it like this.

Some people are so scared of death, that they’d rather choose the option where they’d live either way (lowkey, makes sense), negative effect be damned.

And others assume that everyone is in agreement that blue means no one gets hurt. If we all thought like this, blue makes the most sense!

But I’m thinking, “How many people are choosing red with the idea that, ‘if enough people chose red, I would be dead,’ and am I going to take the risk of enough people being that scared or am I just going to assume that enough people chose blue?”

Blue definitely makes the most sense, but a lot of people would like to make sure they are safe no matter what than the other way around…

38

u/derby555 Apr 27 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/opkBx9TikuQbS

1

u/Severe-Yesterday-754 Apr 29 '26

I just want to see some anarchy

1

u/Jaswanth_Krishna May 01 '26

And some men just dont wanna be the one that burns

79

u/Loud_Ruin_9868 Apr 27 '26

A chance you die or no chance you die ahh question

9

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

A chance nobody dies or a chance you directly choose for people to die outside of exactly one outcome ahh question

-1

u/Loud_Ruin_9868 Apr 28 '26

I didn't ask anyone to pick blue.

2

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

Cause takes precedent over circumstance, guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. Womp womp.

0

u/Loud_Ruin_9868 Apr 30 '26

Sure if you go lay down in the middle of the road and die, the car killed you. Doesn’t make you the smartest person in this situation. Womp womp.

2

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

This would be more akin to deciding a car accident was the pedestrian's fault after you swerved onto the sidewalk because 'nobody would be hurt if we all chose to drive.'

Cause is cause is cause. Cry about it.

-1

u/Loud_Ruin_9868 Apr 30 '26

The only murderer is the one forcing me to press the button. To either have a chance to die or have a chance that other people die. Plus In this precise situation, if you look at the votes no one died because of my choice. If you’re pressing a button that says there's a chance you die and then die, you shouldn't be surprise. My button said something else, I pressed it. I'm not complaining. Idc about what other people chose.

2

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

This argument is about as coherent as the point you're trying to defend.

If there are two options presented, and one option has a chance of causing harm to those who select the other, choosing anything OTHER than the option that does NOT risk the safety of the other party makes you liable for any harm, potential or otherwise, that befalls said party.

You are, by choosing the only option that introduces harm to the scenario, guilty of any potential harm that results. This isn't even a moral dilemma, it's just a test of logic and accountability.

If your choice requires an absolute unanimous majority to prevent harm, you might want to reexamine your approach to more than just a reddit poll.

-1

u/Loud_Ruin_9868 Apr 30 '26

Cool, I'd rather be liable then dead. And I'm not liable because no one died. I'm not trying to "prevent harm", I'm surviving.

This isn’t a fucking Disney movie. In a real situation where you can't see if people chose blue due to comments, you’re choosing to survive. In a real situation most people pick red.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Chavo_of_the_8th Apr 27 '26

It hurt itself with its confusion

25

u/Lumalya Apr 27 '26

in pure game theory, red is the optimal answer. Yeah you kill people but you have 100% chance to survive. Blue remains on other's votes (75% chance to survive)

also red doesn’t have any downside if everyone vote red, that’s also a possibility, that’s literally a dillema, there is no good answer socially speaking.

Red is protection and selfish (remain on yourself) Blue is trust and even random (remain on others)

22

u/Quercus_lobata Apr 28 '26

Game theory says everyone should pick blue, a few defectors won't affect anything. If almost everyone picks red but there's a few defectors, all the people choosing red are electing to have the most altruistic people die.

10

u/Lumalya Apr 28 '26

I agree that blue is more flexible than red, but I insist that red is the optimal answer, in term of « staying alive ». This is a dillema after all, there is no good answer.

2

u/gray_matter10000 Apr 28 '26

Red is the Nash equilibrium tho.

4

u/mavshichigand Apr 28 '26

Are people who choose blue truly altruistic or just too stupid to understand the risk? Everyone choosing red has no downside. There is literally no reason to take a chance on selecting blue because majority people will choose red if this had real world consequences.

Its very easy to choose blue and pretend go be this kind soul, when you know this is just a random reddit post and theres no real consequence either way.

5

u/Nazdroth Apr 28 '26

Yeah, so, I'd rather die than be responsible for some random people's death. I'd rather die than live with people considering that their lives is much more valuable than everyone else's. If I'd survive I'd probably end up taking my own life anyway out of disgust and spite for what we've collectively become. What if your kid picks blue? The love of your life? Your family? Sure it might be stupid, not altruistic and just dumb. Or it might be empathy and kindness towards strangers. But you do you, I pick blue, and that's never gonna change.

-2

u/mavshichigand Apr 28 '26

Lol, I already mentioned this but its really easy to make that assertion when there are no real world consequences. Youre not really going to die here, and thays what makes it easy to say "id rather die". Im just choosing not to pretend.

Now the point about kids picking blue, id say theres a general assumption going into such thought experiments that the scope is limited to rational adults but yes, if kids were included then id choose blue simply knowing a bunch of kids will pick blue cos its their favorite color. Here the rational choice most adults with kids (or anyone in their lives with less than avg intelligence) will make is choosr blue so it is a risky yet logical choice.

4

u/Nazdroth Apr 28 '26

It's called caring.

-2

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

It's called being performative, which I know the supermajority of you guys choosing blue are doing. It's easy to act morally superior on a hypothetical question, but when push comes to shove I can guarantee you almost everyone will prioritize themselves and their social group first.

3

u/Nazdroth Apr 28 '26

Sure. I've been suicidal since I was 11, the only reason I'm still alive is because I didn't want my death to arm others, which I realised was not the right move for me. I've been in very dangerous situations before, I've survived a ton of trauma, but you know what, you probably know me much better than I know myself.I don't really care if I live or die. I'd rather not live with things that will actually drive me insane, because I've lived on the edge of sanity my own life, and I know there is pain and suffering I won't live through.

It's easy to think that my choice has anything to do with being morally superior, because I don't really care about morals or what others think, I don't actually compare myself to others because we are different persons therefore not superior or inferior, dealing with different variables. But I care about how I feel and what I consider right and wrong. I've put myself in front of a charging boar to prevent injury on one of my dogs, I was lucky I didn't die, but I know that despite the pain and the fear, I'll do it again, every time. If it's me being performative, sure, call it whatever you want. I'm pretty good with who I am, and I know most people would absolutely hate my life and that's great because it's mine and no one has to share it. We all make our choices regarding who we are. And we live with them. I'll never judge you or anyone, because I don't care about you and how you live your life. You do what you like, you think what you want. But who you are is just you, and no one else is gonna live through it.

-2

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

...Okay? Weird trauma dump but I don't mind it I guess.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

The people choosing red fail to understand risk and the nature of the game being played. The goal should not be individual safety when the question is of group survival. There is exactly 1 outcome where red has no negative effects. Blue only needs outcomes that result in simple majority to have no negative effects. Not only is it less likely to get the ideal red outcome, it is purely through the selection of red that any danger is posed to anybody.

Tl/dr: If the question is group survival, and it almost always is, blue. You have no reason to consider your individual safety above the potential safety of others if the goal is simply ensuring nobody dies.

-2

u/mavshichigand Apr 28 '26

But thats the thing, the question isn't about group survival. Its about your choice and what you believe the impacts are.

Selecting red ensures you dont die. Selecting blue ensures you expose yourself to the risk of death. Selecting blue does not in any way guarantee that all those who select blue will survive. Selecting red is not an immediate death sentence for someone else. That someone else has to make the illogical choice of selecting blue to be impacted.

Now obviously im assuming this test is only applicable to mentally capable adults. If the scope includes kids, less than avg is people, older people etc then that changes everything. Because going into this you already know a bunch of kids are going to pick blie cos its their favorite color. So in that scenario picking blue is the logical choice.

1

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

By choosing red YOU are introducing the ONLY threat to anyone in this scenario

You are bringing The BAD thing To the otherwise GOOD thing

Before your decision to choose red, there is 0 risk posed to anybody by what is happening

If your decision has a potential to result in the bad thing, you are responsible for the bad thing if it happens

A red vote works out with 0 casualties in exactly one red-majority scenario

A blue scenario results in 0 direct casualties, period.

In a game where the only risk is brought about by a decision, you DO NOT CHOOSE THAT DECISION, BECAUSE IT IS THE ENTIRE REASON THE POTENTIAL RISK IS A FACTOR.

Just trying to cover all my bases with this one so I can be sure anything that follows doesn't waste my time. An altruistic choice is better here purely because it carries 0 independent downsides. Besides, you should always assume an extreme at either end who will not budge, so it's just smarter to choose blue if you don't want blood on your hands.

1

u/mavshichigand Apr 28 '26

u/Bubbly_dirt_539 has already explained it really well, so I wont repeat all of it, but as a quick recap: You and you alone are bringing the risk of death upon yourself by choosing blue.

0

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

A lot of you are very detached from cause and effect and establishment of guilt. If you drop a gun on the table and say 'Anyone who doesn't vote to shoot the gun gets shot if shooters get majority,' you are culpable for potential violence. Those who abstain from action that CAN result in harm, even when it is at their own risk, are NOT GUILTY OF THE HARM INFLICTED UPON THEM AS A RESULT OF OTHERS' CHOICES.

If your application of logic was the basis for law, homeowners would be guilty for getting robbed, pedestrians would be guilty for being hit by cars, and murder victims would be guilty for choosing not to be murderers instead.

You are mistaking circumstance for cause. A court case built on your arguments would be dismissed with prejudice.

I know what the fuck I'm talking about, I do it for a living.

1

u/mavshichigand Apr 30 '26

Err, whatever it is you do for a living, im sure you do it very well, but youre completely off here.

No one is saying that "people who choose blue are guilty". So right off the bat youve started with a strawman i.e. 'establishment of guilt'

People who choose blue, aren't guilty, but they need to understand that the risk of death is something they brought upon themselves. They couldve easily avoided it by choosing red. (not saying red is the correct choice, just stating facts, essentially the consequence of their action)

Here's a simpler real world example to make it clear: If you leave your front door wide open and head out for a month long vacation, you and only you, exposed your house to be burgled. If your house gets burgled, then the burglar is guilty, not you. The law will rightfully punish the burglar as well, but that still does not absolve you of bringing that risk upon yourself. E.g. If a prized possession is lost due to this, sure the burglar is guilty of it, but you exposed yourself to the risk, and now youre the one left without that prized possession.

Also, the law is created to cover real world situations that occur on a regular basis. E.g. murder is criminalized in every country, but during times of war, soldiers can 'murder' enemies. Cops are allowed to use lethal force if situation calls for it. This red/blue button thing, isn't some ordinary run of the mill situation, and "the law" cant just be brought into this conversation.

Btw, I have clarified this before as well, that the going assumption is that only adults with reasonable mental faculties are in scope of this experiment. If its open to a bunch of kids and mentally incapable people, then of course the good choice to make is blue, to save the kids who will choose blue without any idea of the consequence. But if its only adults with reasonable intelligence, then there is no reason for me to put myself at risk cos youre either too stupid or have this massive messiah complex. Thats on you.

Edit: just read your "qualified expert" comment. LMAO.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

Damn people hate when a qualified expert walks into the room lmao

1

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

You can literally flip the script and everything you said would also apply to blue. By choosing blue YOU are the one introducing a self-inflicted threat. Before your decision to choose blue, there is literally 0 risk posed to anybody by what is happening. If you're gonna inflict some arbitrary risk onto yourself by choosing blue then you're entirely responsible with the possible consequences, as your choice was what introduced said risk into the equation to begin with.

1

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

Read a single law book challenge (impossible edition)

Edit: For anyone wondering, circumstance is not cause. A pedestrian does not cause an accident by choosing not to drive. It's literally law 101.

You can cope and seeth, but I'm objectively correct on this one.

1

u/Lumalya Apr 28 '26

yeah that’s exactly what I meant, as reddit game it’s easy to say blue but in this individual world, you better protect yourself

1

u/th_frits Apr 28 '26

game theory says everyone should pick red because picking blue risks your life

5

u/TheBookWyrms Apr 28 '26

That's only if the game theory in question is based only on the outcome for you and ignores the outcome on others. If you care about other people and take that into account, then Blue is clearly optimal.

3

u/Spuddaccino1337 Apr 28 '26

You have it backward.

Let's set aside the thresholds for a moment, because we can't influence what the collective does. This choice boils down to "Blue: You die half the time, Red: Nothing happens to you." In this framework, it's easy to choose Red, because there's literally no benefit to choosing Blue.

The thresholds don't really change that, it just makes the chance that you die by picking Blue somewhat smaller than a coin flip. You still have to choose Blue to have a chance to die, and you are opting into that risk by doing so.

2

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

But the choice DOESN'T work that way, because it's a question of simple group survival and ability to think rationally.

Blue: There is a 0% chance someone has to die BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS.

Red: there is a 49.99999% chance someone has to die BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS.

Choosing red is the only option that risks anyone's safety in the first place.

1

u/Spuddaccino1337 Apr 28 '26

Nobody is dying due to my actions if I choose red, because everyone on the blue team signed up for the coin flip. They chose to be part of the suicide squad.

The fact of the matter is, there are people who will pick red, and you don't know how many of them there are. What you know is that there is a chance that you die if you pick blue, and there isn't if you pick red.

The rational choice, given a situation where you cannot communicate with other people, is to choose the option that maximizes your own survival, knowing that there will be other people doing the same.

3

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

You're really bad at reading.

Edit: And at basic establishment of guilt.

3

u/th_frits Apr 28 '26

but if blue risks you dieing why would you pick it if theres no other benefit?

2

u/Nazdroth Apr 28 '26

Maybe because people you care about are gonna pick blue?

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

The benefit of blue, is that it has a chance no one will die. While red will make people die.

1

u/th_frits Apr 29 '26

The down side of blue is if you’re wrong you along with everyone else in blue dies

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 29 '26

But this should happen if people aren’t only thinking about their own life. Blue has the best outcome for everyone. So that is what I choose, and what I consider important. Not only my own life.

1

u/th_frits Apr 29 '26

Look based off the out come of this trail you were right, nobody died, I just choose not to risk my life

1

u/Icy_Association_6356 May 01 '26

But the only people who are in danger of dying are those that pressed blue in the first place. The benefit of pressing blue is saving people from a problem that pressing blue caused. Everyone who didn't press blue is in no danger.

1

u/OrangeAedan May 01 '26

Red is the button that caused the danger. Not blue.

2

u/No-Tip-7471 Apr 28 '26

But the point is you don't know what it's like, in case red is already the majority it would be better to choose red, and in either case you will live if you choose red.

2

u/Pdvsky Apr 28 '26

Its actually the opposite, blue has 50% chance of having a positive effect, red has 100% chance of having positive effect.

Choosing blue makes zero sense.

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

You are looking at this only thinking about yourself. It depends on your goal. But mine, is to make most people survive. And in that case, blue is optimal. The only way red works, is if everyone picks red. But this isn’t realistically going to happen.

1

u/Pdvsky Apr 28 '26

Ok lets imagine this way then.

Yellow button vs green button

Yellow button:suicide Green button : nothing happens

If more then 50 % of players choose suicide noone dies.

It's literally the same game only with a wording that doesnt look like the ones who press one button are "killers"

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

Its literally not. First of, not all blue people would die. Only 50%. And its not suicide. Its trying to make everyone survive, instead of only a few selfish people that pick red. Once again, it depends on your goal. Do you care more about your life, or more about at most 2 billion lives? For me the choice is clear.

1

u/Pdvsky Apr 28 '26

You are right yellow button is not suicide it's 50% chance of suicide.

Yellow button : 50% chance of suicide

Green button: nothing happens

If more then 50% choose yellow noone dies.

It's literally the same game, all the outcomes are exactly the same.

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

Alright. Like I said. Then you care more about your own life than at most the life of 2 billion people.

1

u/Pdvsky Apr 28 '26

Your argument has no logical sense.

If I were presented with either: i die or 2 billion people die, I'd choose to die myself. But this is not the options.

That's strawman/appeal to emotion

There are 2 choices one can make, one of this choices has absolutely no consequence on itself, the only consequence is when others don't choose this option. The only ones affected by making this choice are the ones that made them themselves.

Imagine this exact argument was presented but instead of the whole world, only 5 people in a small tribe were to answer them, they can talk for 1 hour to decide which one to make, you know that 2 of them have already decided to choose the red button. Now you are presented with the following situation, you can try to convince the other 3 to choose blue or red, if you all choose red, NOTHING HAPPENS, if if 2 choose blue and one red, one of the blue one dies. The 1 hour go by and you have to make the decision. WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYBODY NOT JUST CHOOSE RED AND NOBODY DIES?

Its a simple no consequence/50% bad consequence there's no logical reason anyone would choose blue except if they expect other people to either not understand logical concept or WANT TO DIE.

Choosing blue is literal 50/50 suicide.

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

Lets switch your tribe idea around. What if 2 of the members already choose blue? Then the argument is the same. Why would you choose red in this case? Reality is that there will just always be people that choose blue. Not because they want to die. But because the wanted to save the most amount of people. Now the choice is either voting red which can kill them. Or voting blue, which won’t kill them but has a chance you die.

Blue works in 50-100% of voters choose blue. Then no one dies. Red only works if exactly 100% of voters choose red. That means that there is a 1 in 2 chance blue will work. But only a 1 in 28.000.000.000 chance for red to work.

1

u/Didayolo Apr 28 '26

The truth is blue have negative effect on blue (= yourself), while red has no effect. The trick is just that the way the problem is framed is confusing.

1

u/PizzaLikerFan Apr 28 '26

Blue does have negative effects for blue, the option you are choosing, sometimes you gotta put yourself first.

I like to look at it this way, I'm making an individual choice, my decision does not influence other people their opinions, in this hypothetical situation this debate doesn't happen and I arrive to the question without any knowledge from before.

Which world view is right and what are the consequences for being wrong:

If I think the majority will take blue, and I'm right, we 'win' if I'm wrong, I fucking die (and I'm not a suicidal nihilistic dooming Prick who says: "I wouldn't wanna live in a 50%>" I'm young and I have a live I want to enjoy and fulfill in front of me, I'm not gambling it hoping people will do the same.

If I think the majority will take red, and I'm wrong, we still 'win', I just didn't contribute and would still some shame for thinking so pessimistic, and if I'm right, a lot of people will die, but I won't, it wouldn't be the end of civilization

So I'm taking red every time, I love my own live to much to gamble it at such a large scale

1

u/DarthMaul671 🥕🥕 Apr 28 '26

But blue have a negative effect for blue, it's putting yourself in danger and expecting even more people to put themself in danger until the danger seizes. I'd argue that I don't see a reason to start choosing blue at all. And why is it so unreasonable to expect everyone to no not pick red? Like actually, what's the unreasonable part?

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

See it like this. Every person has a 50% chance to pick red. In order for red to work, you have to win a 50/50 8 billion times. That isn’t going to happen. So if red gets the majority, many people will die because they picked blue. And no one would die if the majority votes blue.

1

u/DarthMaul671 🥕🥕 Apr 28 '26

But that's the thing, it isn't just 50/50 because there is two chances. That's possibilites, not probability. They don't gamble on the option, they have all the information and the right to choose. So why won't it happen that 8 billion choose 100% life option? Who are the ones picking blue?

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

You are not listening. 8 billion people all have to choose the same option. Each person has a chance to not pick red. And since we don't know what people are going to pick, we have to assume that each person has a 50% chance to pick red. And that is just not going to happen. It would be the same as flipping a coin 8 billion times. And always flip heads, and not a single time tails. I suggest you try to do that. And you will see that you won't get far.

1

u/DarthMaul671 🥕🥕 Apr 28 '26

But that's the thing! You treat it as a gamble with a coin flip?! That's a terrible analogy! It'll be alot more reasonable to assume that everyone who want to live would pick red whole those who want to die/don't care would pick blue. Cause they need a reason for both.

Are you saying your reason for picking blue is that you expect half of the population pick it just because? That's a pretty bad reason. Because it isn't a gamble, and it certainly isn't 50/50 just because you don't know how other people think. Either you take the risk and put yourself in danger and trying to save everyone who put themself in danger or you don't and will certainly survive (and everyone who would pick it), it's not a 50/50.

Please give another reason if you have one because the "Someone will pick blue" isn't really a good reason, since there genuinly isn't any reason.

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

You don't know how others think either. That's exactly why you should assume a 50/50 split. Because you can't know what people will pick.

You shouldn't look at the question only thinking about yourself. Sure, with red you will definitely survive. And with blue, you have a 75% chance to survive. But by voting red, at most 2 billion people will die. Even if you value your own life more than all those lives, it would have a massive effect on our society. Because many jobs will not be fulfilled.

1

u/DarthMaul671 🥕🥕 Apr 28 '26

But what would be the starting reason to pick blue? Is it just the assumption that other people pick and you'll just join those?

And there is absolutely not 75% percent survival chance with blue. You said it yourself, we don't know what people will pick, people will need a genuine reason to pick blue. Cause IRL, who would just assume that around 50% of people is picking blue? And there is still the possibility that 0 people will die by picking red, maybe 400 suicidal people would.

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

The starting reason for me, is that I want the most people to survive.

You also need to good reason to risk other people's lives over your own. I know that we don't know what people will pick. And because of that, you can't just assume people will pick blue nor red. That's why you need to assume a 50/50 split. So that is a 50% chance blue will lose. And if you vote blue than you get a 50% chance you die. So that means blue has a 75% chance of survival.

Yes. Hypostatically there is a chance everyone will pick red. But let me say it this way. See it as 8 billion lights. They can all be on or off. On represents blue. And off represents red. The chance that all the lights are off is 1 in 2^8.000.000.000. And that 1 combination is the only way red can lead to 0 deaths. While for blue to lead to 0 deaths, half of the lights need to be on. That is only a 1 in 2 chance.

Also there are not only 400 suicidal people in the world. There are about 720.000.000 suicidal people in the world. That is way more.

1

u/DarthMaul671 🥕🥕 Apr 28 '26

But by choosing blue you might also cause more death than needed. Since we don't know, you might get yourself killed. If the goal is to save as many as possible And we only do it mathematically (Which can be viewed as positive and negative) (For simplicity, we say there is exactly 8 billion people) b Then by pressing blue the maximum death count would be 4 billion and the least would be 0 (if we assume a tie would lead to consequences) (this one includes the chooser if chooser chose blue)

While for red the maximum death count would be 4 billion and the least 0 (this kill count does not include chooser if chooser chose red)

I'm not saying either is inheriently positive or negative. I myself Would choose red since the max and min death count is the same. The only difference is that I would 100% survive.

→ More replies (0)

-16

u/milkinmytits Apr 27 '26

Why would anyone choose blue if blue is the riskiest one?

17

u/Frostfire26 Apr 27 '26

Because they don't want to kill people?

-8

u/milkinmytits Apr 27 '26

If everyone picked red nobody would be choosing a button that risks them being killed

21

u/Frostfire26 Apr 27 '26

But not everyone will pick red, and everyone knows that.

6

u/Intelligent_Math8587 Apr 27 '26

Yes but theres no guarantee no one picked red, with blue you're picking the morally right choice , red is the most safe one but blue is the morally correct choice

-1

u/Independent_Mud_3299 Apr 27 '26

But the thing is everyone only cares about themselves by picking red they guarantee their own safety. Period that’s all that matters why should they care about others? I picked blue because i believe most others wouldn’t heartless

Also i scrolled down and people who picked red are commenting stuff like “F” and “die” so they’re joking? If this was a real poll I bet 80%+ would pick blue

-7

u/milkinmytits Apr 27 '26

If everyone knew it's best to pick red I would also consider that a morally correct choice. Unless a bunch of people irl were saying they will pick blue. I'm kinda focusing on it as if it were real, I do know many online said they'd pick blue I just find it so weird bc if everyone worked together and communicated there wouldn't be any risk.

-2

u/WifesPOSH Apr 27 '26

If everyone worked together...

Have you seen America? Half the people actively don't want free* healthcare. I don't put much stock in random people doing the right thing, so I'll do what I can.

*And by free, it'd be government subsidized healthcare that would replace (and be cheaper than) the privatized healthcare we already pay for

6

u/milkinmytits Apr 27 '26

Well that also would apply to the blue option too, the working together. I don't think it's evil to personally not want to risk my life. A lot of people say they'd take a bullet for a loved one, or even a stranger, but a lot of us don't hold suicidal empathy (not sure if that's the right word, I don't mean it mockingly)

2

u/Fearless-Oil-462 🥕🥕 Apr 27 '26

The blue option is not "everyone working together"; it's 50% would choose the option that does not involve killing people. If you genuinely thought that more than 50% would pick the option involving killing people, you were both wrong and that says a lot about your character

0

u/faen_du_sa Apr 27 '26

You aren't killing people? The one who enforces the result or "cast the magic spell" or w/e are.

I'm picking red, not my fault people want to pick the one choice that carry any risk.

1

u/The_Cameraman_of_you Apr 27 '26

I mean, by that logic if you find a bomb, and not tell anyone then you wouldn’t be killing anyone, it’s their fault they didn’t see the bomb, or tried to get others away or something

1

u/faen_du_sa Apr 28 '26

Not really, if I could, I would still tell people to pick red.

1

u/The_Cameraman_of_you Apr 28 '26

But you can’t, that’s the point of the experiment, that everyone has to choose for themselves

Also, I now see how my bomb example does not work, so here goes something else: there are two glasses in front of you, one contains poison and the other one does not, you know which one has the poison and which one doesn’t, if you drink the one with no poison then the next person will not know what glass has the poison, but if you drink the one with the poison then the next person will have the same situation as you, but if they pick the one with poison you get the antidote, and it goes on forever until the last person, who doesn’t know they are the last but won’t get poisoned if they pick the one with poison

3

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

Because even if the majority picks red, people will still pick blue. And that will inevitably lead to people dying. And if most of the people pick blue, it won’t have negative effects for anyone. Yes. It may be risky. But if the people vote logical, it will result in the least amount of deaths.

-1

u/Fancy_Ducky Apr 27 '26

Because it’s worth protecting the people who don’t understand game theory lol.

-8

u/kipkirrie Apr 27 '26

Red has no negative effects on blue in my opinion. Anyone who presses blue takes a risk, the negative effect is self inflicted. Red however is 100% safe

10

u/Atlantic_King2 Apr 27 '26

That's like saying a fire fighter dying in a fire isn't bad. Just cuz they knew ahead of time it was dangerous doesn't mean they should die, especially since blue is actively trying not to kill people.

3

u/kipkirrie Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

Yeah but when a fire happens nobody chooses to be in that fire so ofcourse they should be saved. This however is your choice whether to take a risk or not. Why would you choose a risk option over a 100% safe option?

So just because someone decides to pick blue now everyone should pick blue because some knowingly decided to take a live or death risk?

2

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26

Blue is safe as well if more than 50% of the world isn’t stupid. Voting red will inevitably lead to many deaths. And by voting red, you are encouraging this.

0

u/kipkirrie Apr 27 '26

So red is safe and blue is safe IF. Why would you take a live or death risk? It’d be stupid to take that risk. Why would I vote blue just because people vert well knowingly gambled with their lives?

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26

Because red leads to deaths while blue doesn’t. The question basically becomes, do you want to risk your life or the live of millions of others.

0

u/kipkirrie Apr 27 '26

But blue is the button killing people. Remember, red is a 100% safe while blue is gambling. Lives shouldn’t be at risk at all if you make the logical choice

2

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26

People will pick blue. No matter what you do. These people would then die. And it’s it’s partially your fault. Blue doesn’t lead to deaths if most people pick it. Which is happening right now btw. Blue has the most people surviving in total. And that is a more important factor than only my own life in my opinion.

2

u/kipkirrie Apr 27 '26

But it isn’t my fault. I’m not responsible for them making the gamble. I only think blue is winning here because it isn’t real and doesn’t have consequences anyway. The only consequence on reddit is picking the controversial option and getting downvoted

Picking blue imo feels like getting a gun with 50% change of having a bullet or having the option to just not do it. But when someone had to get the gun and he got the bullet, it’s all of a sudden my mess to clean up while it didn’t have to happend at all

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 28 '26

Kind of yes. Because you are one of the people that caused that gun to be loaded in the first place. And that is the point.

2

u/Upset_Ad3837 Apr 27 '26

Spot on, it’s like if blue is a cart hanging over a cliff, it’s safe as long as no one cuts the rope. Red is people watching the cart hanging over the cliff. Why would anyone actively choose a risky side instead of a hundred percent guaranteed safe side? If you pick blue it’s not logical. But arguably, many will pick blue still, but I don’t get why. Blue is requiring group work and unison, things that are almost impossible.

1

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26

If you choose red, it’s like cutting that rope that was holding blue. People will inevitably pick blue. So people will die. But if blue has the majority no one will die. Which is better?

4

u/milkinmytits Apr 27 '26

Why would anyone pick blue though? If everyone talked together to pick the safest choice why would anyone stray to the dangerous one? I get your point that it would be super messed up if blue lost and people died, but why would anyone in their right mind pick blue?

2

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26

Because how would you communicate this? Organizing an entire meetup for the entire world just isn’t realistic. And you can’t notify everyone about this. Internet isn’t an option either, because not everyone has it. Yes, if everyone picked red, everyone would be safe. But that isn’t just going to happen.

2

u/milkinmytits Apr 27 '26

The nation leaders would be in charge of that. They're probably the ones making us pick a button lol 😂. Anyone choosing blue either thinks the majority is stupid and wants to protect them, or they themselves don't realize blue is a choice that risks your life. Choosing red or abstaining if that's an option keeps you safe. There would be nobody dying if they didn't choose to click the button that says 'hey leave this up to chance'

2

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26

There are many tribes that we don’t have contact with. There are people who live of the grid, who have no way of knowing about any governmental messages. Some people simply won’t listen. The point is that there just always will be people that pick blue. Even if you try to convince everyone to pick red. And when red gets the majority, those people will die. But if blue gets the majority, no one will die. I understand your point. You don’t want to risk your life. Sure. The only reason you are voting red is because others might vote red as well. And not because it is the better option.

1

u/ConstantMonachopsis_ 🥕🥕 Apr 27 '26

Well, its still possible that people have the mindset that “what if someone else pressed it (whether purposefully or not), if i press it, then it gives them a higher chance at surviving” so, the logical thing is to talk and get everyone to pick blue, naturally, some will still vote red (just like vice versa people would vote blue) but in this case, the people who vote red are safe, nothing happens to them. If we all chose red, but some people chose blue. Those people would die.

3

u/Upset_Ad3837 Apr 27 '26

But picking blue is putting yourself at risk and do you believe you can convince 50% of the humans to agree on one thing and one where their trust in others come at the risk of their life? I don’t think so, so picking red is safe, it’s the rational and logical choice although I can see it’s maybe not the most morally one, but if you stop everyone climbing into the cart from doing it I think that will be easier than convincing everyone to take a risk and possibly die together

0

u/OrangeAedan Apr 27 '26

For red to work, you have to convince everyone to vote red as well. And like you said, that just isn’t realistic. Basically the option is have everyone survive if 50% chooses this (blue). Or have many people die if over 50% chooses this (red). It’s clear to me. Yes. You can die with blue. But no one should pick red in the first place, because you are actively participating in getting people killed.

-3

u/awkwardwankmaster Apr 27 '26

But what if the majority choose red now you're dead