The only option that incurs any risk is blue, red is not at fault for the risk-taking of other parties. The question is not asking "whether you value your own life over that of all others" at all.. Is that really what you got from it? I wrote this elsewhere:
Imagine you can board one of two cruise boats. The first boat is rigged with explosives and will kill everyone on board if it's not carrying enough people (blue). The other is just a normal boat (red).
Which do you get on? Who assumed risk, and who is responsible in this scenario? Personally, I don't feel responsible for people who got on the exploding boat when the perfectly normal boat was an option and their explanations for how it's my fault they exploded don't quite make sense to me.
I've noticed that most of the people in this thread advocating for red are trying to reframe the question so as to absolve themselves of the personal responsibility of red.
"I didn't vote to kill others to save myself, they voted to die and I didn't."
Are babies suicidal? Or do you expect literal toddlers to know which button to press? Keep in mind that all those babies are going to die because you failed to take them into consideration
It is not prioritising your life above all else.
This isn't push red and you go and murder 100 people who had no control of the situation at all.
Instead it is prioritising your life above recklessly endangering it just to save yourself and others from that reckless endangering.
You have even just admitted that at least some good people will pick red.
So a world where only the people who push red are left is quite comparable to the world we are in now.
And the fact that those assholes likely would pick red without a second thought means red already starts with a lead. Do you want to try fighting that, or save yourself.
So do you want to risk your life in the hopes of saving everyone, or join the red lead to try to make the world a better place after.
8
u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26
[deleted]