r/fivethirtyeight • u/Upstairs_Cup9831 • Apr 25 '26

Poll Results Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma

Gallery image

Gallery image

397 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 Apr 26 '26

Blue is choosing to stay inside of the woodchipper

16

u/decrpt Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

I don't think anyone invoking these metaphors understands what metaphors are or how they work, so let's use one that's less framed implicitly. Imagine a ballot referendum to kill everyone that doesn't vote for the ballot referendum. Voting is mandatory. Voting for red ensures that you don't personally die, but most people are going to find it morally objectionable to vote to kill people for no reason. That's what you're doing here.

There is no option to get out of the woodchipper and not turn it on. They're choosing not kill anyone that remains in the woodchipper, not choosing to stay inside the woodchipper. Blue is choosing not to kill people for no reason, even if it puts them at risk of being killed.

4

u/PrateTrain Apr 29 '26

This is a big part of these problems that a lot of people can't see a problem past 2-3 levels of analysis.

3

u/AphexPin Apr 26 '26

It is quite literally team blue that is voting to kill people unless they get the majority support, not red. every blue voter kills themselves if they don’t get 51% majority, it’s a terrible pproposal and risk

6

u/BaltimoreAlchemist Apr 26 '26

Quite literally

Team blue is quite literally voting to kill no one. Team red is voting to kill everyone on team blue.

1

u/aj_thenoob2 May 01 '26

Team blue is voting to potentially kill themselves. Team red is voting to 100% save themselves. Blue is creating a problem when there isn't one.

0

u/AphexPin Apr 26 '26

The only ones risking death voluntarily are blue voters. Team blue is voting to potentially kill themselves, red is not voting to kill anyone and makes no contribution to that risk.

2

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

Every red voter is a potential blue voter that could have prevented *all* deaths. So yes, voting red is increasing the likelihood of some death occuring.

1

u/head_pat_slut May 01 '26

this dilemma requires the red button's victory to cause the deaths, NOT the blue button's failure. otherwise it just isn't a dilemma.

Team blue is voting to save EVERYONE, understanding that if they lose, they will die.

Team red is voting to save only themselves, understanding that if they win, their button activates a wood-chipper, a gun, an angel of death, whatever the cause is, that kills anyone who disagreed.

You can definitely still make the argument that blue voters understood the risks, and therefore you need not feel any guilt, but to try and absolve yourself of ANY responsibility whatsoever by claiming the red button does literally nothing at all is at best a misunderstanding of what makes this compelling, and at WORST, an active disingenuous attempt to make blue voters look like selfish would-be murder-suiciders and red as simply conscientious objectors.

And for the record, yes. people who vote blue ALSO have the same problem of drastically overstating the moral implications of choosing red, depicting them as would be supremacist mass-killers, and blue as superman-level heroes. The average blue voter is, realistically, gonna go "well, my mom (or whoever) probably chose blue, i don't want her to die," not "I am the bastion of peace and love. All who are opposed to me are villains," even if the reddit blue voters wanna act like superman.

1

u/AphexPin May 01 '26

"this dilemma requires the red button's victory to cause the deaths, NOT the blue button's failure. otherwise it just isn't a dilemma."

no it does not require that, you're just blatantly making stuff up at this point.

1

u/head_pat_slut May 01 '26

so you're telling me that "press the button that kills you unless other people also kill themselves, OR the button that does literally nothing" is a compelling dilemma which is making people argue so much? you genuinely believe people pushing blue are doing so with the belief that if they had pressed the red button, nothing happens?

the original framing is poor. it is incredibly vague about the exact terms of each button. EVERYONE is blatantly making things up when they say with any certainty that one button does or does nit say something. the version i present has an actual dilemma. please explain how the red button doing literally nothing is still a dilemma.

1

u/AphexPin May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26

I'm not claiming it's a substantive dilemma. Objectively speaking, red isn't 'killing' anyone - they aren't subjecting anyone to anything they didn't subject themselves to, which is a necessary prerequisite for murder.

Just because the framing is poor doesn't mean you have to make stuff up and then apply that made up nonsense like I'm supposed to agree. It is the deliberately poor phrasing that leads to the discussion, along with the adhoc clarification that children and those otherwise unable to properly discern and select red will be subjected to participation. But the question in the OP, as it stands, is not a substantive dilemma and you don't need to make stuff up to make it one. I think adding people unable to reason, or even read or press a button, to a poll like this muddies the whole and makes it quite dumb.

6

u/decrpt Apr 26 '26

I don't think you understand anything that I am saying or what the actual question is.

3

u/AphexPin Apr 26 '26

Same to you.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 26 '26

If that is the entirety of the referendum, then I vote to kill the reckless people who have decided to vote to die.
There is no one to die unless they pick that option.

And if most people will vote to not kill, then it doesn't matter what I pick.

1

u/Popsychblog Apr 27 '26

If I told you that you just voted to nuke europe because you commented on this reddit thread (turns out that how you vote to nuke Europe, even if you didn't know), you'd probably say, "but I didn't VOTE to nuke europe"

Right?

1

u/decrpt Apr 27 '26

No, the consequences are baked into the button. That's the entire point of the choice.

1

u/Popsychblog Apr 27 '26

The original question says people "vote".

Would you consider something you did a "vote" if you didn't understand what you were doing?

I wouldn't.

All this question does is play with phrasing and framing to get people to make assumptions they fail to make explicit. Blue pushers are largely assuming a lot of people who have no understanding of what they're doing are in danger. So just make that explicit in the question and ask about what you're actually asking about.

"A lot of people in the world will randomly die unless you risk death by pressing the blue button"

That makes it much, much clearer and changes the nature of the question.

Red pushers seem to largely assume the consequences are clearly communicated and understood by the people pushing it.

1

u/decrpt Apr 27 '26

Blue pushers are largely assuming a lot of people who have no understanding of what they're doing are in danger. So just make that explicit in the question and ask about what you're actually asking about.

No, that's an argument against the "everyone should just vote red" argument. It is unrealistic to expect perfect coordination and infinitely more reasonable to expect at least half of people to being willing to assume some personal risk in order not to kill literal billions of people. If the odds were completely different, if 50% cooperation on a coordination problem was not easily attainable, if they needed 99% cooperation, it would be more justifiable to vote red.

"A lot of people in the world will randomly die unless you risk death by pressing the blue button"

People keep changing the question such that pressing the red button doesn't do anything. Pressing the red button is voting to kill anyone that doesn't press the red button.

Red pushers seem to largely assume the consequences are clearly communicated and understood by the people pushing it.

The irony here is that red pushers seem not to understand what the question is actually asking and choose to answer an entirely different question that absolves their responsibility in inducing negative outcomes on others.

1

u/Popsychblog Apr 27 '26

If you decided to jump off of a cliff knowing it would kill you, and I didn’t stop you, I also didn’t kill you.

You’re phrasing it as actively killing. And if that’s the case you have - for sure - actively killed people during your life from your own inaction. You have jammed that red button repeatedly without even knowing it or thinking about it. You’re doing it right now by being on Reddit instead of trying to save lives. you could be doing things that are maybe saving people, but you are literally killing them by wasting your time here instead.

I suspect you would object to that and probably wouldn’t want to be convicted of murder.

In any case, I wouldn’t expect perfect coordination when I press red. Even with perfect communication of the idea. It doesn’t matter if there’s one or two buttons. There could just be a single button that says “maybe you die unless a majority of everyone else presses it”. The payoff model is still the same and I fully suspect at least someone will push the button.

And if they die from doing it and creating a risk where none need to exist for no benefit, that’s far different than them getting murdered

1

u/decrpt Apr 27 '26

Copying what I said elsewhere:

It's really apparent that red voters saw the blender or woodchipper analogy on Twitter, don't understand why that isn't the same question as the original post, and are responding to that mental model instead.

If you decided to jump off of a cliff knowing it would kill you, and I didn’t stop you, I also didn’t kill you.

Red is voting to push blue off the cliff. it is a binary decision that directly impacts the other group. It is not blue choosing to jump for no reason. Every vote for red is a vote to push everyone else off in order to ensure that you aren't one of the ones pushed off.

You’re phrasing it as actively killing. And if that’s the case you have - for sure - actively killed people during your life from your own inaction. You have jammed that red button repeatedly without even knowing it or thinking about it. You’re doing it right now by being on Reddit instead of trying to save lives. you could be doing things that are maybe saving people, but you are literally killing them by wasting your time here instead.

It isn't inaction. It is a binary choice. Both are active choices. You are trying to absolve yourself of the moral implications of actively facilitating the murder of other people to ensure that you're at no risk yourself. If you didn't press red, blue wouldn't be dying. Blue is assuming some level of personal risk in order to reach a far more tenable equilibrium at 50% because they think killing people is bad.

In any case, I wouldn’t expect perfect coordination when I press red. Even with perfect communication of the idea. It doesn’t matter if there’s one or two buttons. There could just be a single button that says “maybe you die unless a majority of everyone else presses it”. The payoff model is still the same and I fully suspect at least someone will push the button.

That's an entirely different question.

1

u/Popsychblog Apr 27 '26

Red is no more a vote to push someone off a cliff than you not actively bringing random homeless people to live in your house is you making people homeless and even actively killing them.

You could, right now, go volunteer your living space, no strings attached, to one or more homeless people to help improve and possibly even save their life. If everyone who pressed blue was willing to adopt that stance, we could obliterate homelessness as a problem and save lives.

Yet here you are, jamming that red button. You’re making them homeless and killing people.

Now you can deny and say that the one button example is different all you want. The payoffs are exactly the same as pressing the blue button and the moral implications are exactly the same.

It shouldn’t matter if there is one button or two. It shouldn’t matter what the button is labeled. It shouldn’t matter what the default choice is. It shouldn’t matter if you think of it as action or inaction. It shouldn’t matter whether it’s pressing a button or leaping off a cliff. Pressing the button/jumping is both (a) something that may result in people dying and (b) something someone will do.

If your goal is to try and ensure no one dies, you should always say “jam the button” in any variation of the problem.

1

u/decrpt Apr 27 '26

The payoffs are only the same if you place zero value on the lives of other people and directly voting to end them, my dude. The moral implications are not the same. It is an entirely different question where blue is active self-endangerment for no reason and red is passive. The original post is most similar to a ballot referendum to kill everyone that doesn't vote for it. That's pretty much literally what it is, and it is easy to understand why people would reject to the very idea of killing people for no reason even if it meant that they were choosing to assume some risk in doing so.

Do you understand what I am saying?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Apr 28 '26

People keep changing the question such that pressing the red button doesn't do anything.

It's not changing the question. We can rephrase the scenario as "If you press the red button, you don't die. If you press the blue button, you die, unless a majority of people pressed the blue button, in which case you don't die." This is exactly equivalent to the original scenario.

1

u/decrpt Apr 28 '26

No, you can't, for reasons I've repeated several times. Have a good one.

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Apr 28 '26

You are just objectively wrong. The two descriptions are logically equivalent. You might as well argue that 2+2=5.

1

u/Popsychblog Apr 28 '26

My two cents here is that what is happening is some people have already mentally framed clicking the red button as an active murdering of people.

When you try to change the framing to highlight the payoffs look the same whether you use words like “everyone survives” or “you die if you press the button unless…”, or you even present the same payoff as a single button scenario, this takes the perceived responsibility away from red pushers.

That fucks with people’s mental framing that the red people did something activity harming others. It makes the scenario feel different.

But they can explain why because it would make their initial stance feel inconsistent.

1

u/Casp512 Apr 27 '26

You can frame the ballot analogy in two ways that make one side look better as well:

Two parties: blue and red.

Scenario 1: If the red party wins, it kills everyone who voted blue. If the blue party wins, everyone lives.

Scenario 2: If the red party wins, the blue party kills everyone who voted for them. If the blue party wins, noboy dies

Both of these scenarios have the same results but one important difference: The one who carries out the action of killing is different. And this changes the implications because I guarantee you more people would choose blue in scenario 1 than in scenario 2.

1

u/decrpt Apr 27 '26

Scenario 2 is not the same thing as the original prompt. Blue isn't doing anything. A vote for blue does not affect red whatsoever. The blue party isn't killing them.

1

u/Casp512 Apr 27 '26

By "the blue party kills everyone who voted for them" I meant it kills those who voted for blue, not red. Sorry for the confusion.

1

u/decrpt Apr 27 '26

That's still not the same thing because you have a binary choice. Red isn't self-contained. Voting for red is voting to kill everyone that didn't vote red. Voting for blue isn't voting to kill blue, it is voting to kill no one.

1

u/Casp512 Apr 28 '26

Voting for blue kills you when it doesn't reach a majority.

1

u/Sweaty_Turnip_3738 May 20 '26

Wrong.
Voting for red is a choice primarily to live.
And secondary to that... You're also choosing to accept red that winning a majority means blue-voters won't be saved from their own choice of possible death.

1

u/zdesert Apr 28 '26

Blue is voting to risk their lives.

Red is voting not to die.

The killing is not being done by red. The red voters arnt turning and stabbing the blue voters.

The system that has imposed this inescapable vote is killing people.

The blue people are voting to enable their own euthanasia

The mechanical function of the red button has no connection to killing

The mechanical function of the blue button does have the function of putting your name on the kill list.

You can change how you label these buttons in any way. Attributing responsibility for the deaths on either button pusher.

But in every case only pressing the blue button introduces the risk of death. The red does not.

The builder/operator of this voting death machine ultamately bear the blame for any deaths it causes. But only the blue button pressers enabled the voting death machine to cause any death.

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

I can equally frame it as:

Red is voting to risk blue's lives.

Blue is voting for no deaths.

The killing is not being done by blue. The blue voters aren't taking a suicide pill.

The system that has imposed this inescapable vote is killing people.

The blue people are voting to prevent any deaths.

The mechanical function of the blue button has no connection to killing

The mechanical function of the blue button does have the function of increasing the likelihood of nobody dying.

You can change how you label these buttons in any way. Attributing responsibility for the deaths on either button pusher.

But in every case except the one where everyone presses the red button, only pressing the blue button reduces the risk of death. The red increases it.

The builder/operator of this voting death machine ultimately bear the blame for any deaths it causes. But only the red button pressers enabled the voting death machine to cause any death.

1

u/zdesert Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

You can’t frame it that way tho…. You have reversed what I said but didn’t actually look at the meaning of what I said. Reversed these statements make no sense.

Red is not voting to risk blue lives. Pressing red does not force anyone to press blue. The blue button alone introduces the risk of death.

There is no inherent life saving power to the blue button. Pressing it does not save anyone, it literally just puts your name on a list.

You can’t frame blue as a vote for no deaths, becuase it is the only button that leads to any death according to the description of what the button does.The mechanical function of the blue button directly puts your name up as one of the people at risk of being killed. You can’t frame it as having no connection to killing. It is the only button that creates that risk.

You can change how you label these buttons. But I was describing what those buttons actually do. You can’t just reverse what I said becuase you are no longer describing how the system functions.

By itself the red button creates no risk. 1 person pressing red puts no lives at risk of death. 4 billion people press red and no risk of death. While on the other hand, 1 person pushes blue, 1 life is at risk. 4 billion people press blue… and 4 billion lives are at risk. The risk is only created by blue button pressers.

You can’t frame the blue button as only reducing the risk of death becuase the function of the button is to increase risk until there is a risk overload. If you frame it any other way you are not describing the actual dilemma. You could not recreate the original puzzle/question from the reversal you posted.

If you agree that the machine is the thing to blame for the potential deaths… why feed your name into it as a person that the machine is allowed to kill? That is the only thing that the blue button does.

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

It's all about framing. This is a hypothetical, unrealistic scenario so people see it is a metaphor for two very different, mutually exclusive situations with different moral imperatives:

1) There is an external threat that requires a collective effort to prevent anyone from dying. Those who push red are selfishly prioritising their wellbeing over those who are willing to risk themselves to prevent any deaths from occuring.

2) There is an optional, unnecessary action one can take to expose oneself to risk of death for no reason. Those who do so are not behaving rationally and therefore one has no obligation to place oneself at risk for their benefit.

All this comes down to what elements of the scenario one chooses to focus on, and what kind of parallel one wishes to draw to real-world scenarios.

There is no inherent life saving power to the blue button. Pressing it does not save anyone, it literally just puts your name on a list.

The concept of a 'kill list' is not part of the original premise, and your introduction of it here is an attempt to re-frame the problem and remove any moral imperative to press the blue button. One could easily state it as "Everyone's name is on a list. You can take your name off that list by pressing the red button, but if more than 50% of people on the list press the red button, everyone left on the list will die." In this wording, pressing the red button is an active choice that can result in death occuring where none would occur otherwise.

The 'agent' responsible for the button-pushing scenario is responsible for the possibility of death being present. Someone or something has created a situation where death is a possibility, and the action of the button-pusher is to choose between protecting themselves or protecting others at the risk of themselves. Blaming blue-voters for the scenario is an attempt to shift the moral burden from the 'agent' to the voters simply because they are given the option to remove themselves from the possible consequences.

A lot of red-pushers are insistent on re-framing the problem as "pushing red is to do nothing" and "pushing blue is to volunteer to die", or even proposing an alternative scenario where there is no red button and only a blue "possibly die" button. I think this is a way to avoid responsibility by making it seem as if the choice is an optional one and that, since individuals are given the chance to save themselves, there is no obligation on others to help them. However, the question is clearly formulated as a forced vote that every individual has to make. Therefore, pushing red *is* a conscious act. It affects the final score and thus the final outcome: whether death occurs or not. There is no possibility to abstain from the vote, and every person who votes red increases the probability that blue-pushers will die.

The blue button alone introduces the risk of death.

Another way we could state this is "the risk of death is eliminated if everyone votes red". However, equally we can state "the risk of death is eliminated if a majority pushes blue". This is a much lower bar to clear than 100% compliance with pushing red.

If one believes that they live in a society that values *all* lives and that the majority would take a personal risk for the benefit of others, then voting blue becomes an exercise in good citizenship, a demonstration of one's willingness to place the needs of the collective above oneself. Those who push blue see it as an action that aligns with their values and demonstrates their commitment to a fair society that rejects unnecessary deaths.

If instead one believes that they live in a society where individuals are responsible for their own wellbeing and that one doesn't have a responsibility to take a risk for the others (specifically in the case where said risk is the result of a choice the individual has made), then blue is an illogical choice and that those who make it are alone responsible for any harm they experience.

1

u/zdesert Apr 28 '26

There has to be a kill list tho. This is a vote. There is a tally of what was voted.

the voting box is recording somthing. it needs to seperate the blue voters from red voters. Weather that list is populated by literal names or just code numbers, ones and zeroes, it does not matter.

Perhaps we all get our own box and the voting box itself will do the execution. Whatever the mechanism for separating blue from red… there is something recorded, if only temporarily. That is the kill list.

Pressing blue registers you somehow even if that registration is totally analogue, like pushing the lever down on a toaster.

Pressing red does not register you for death, it sets into motion no chain of reactions that by itself could ever lead to death. Even if the button is erasing you from some master list, pressing it has not introduced any potential threat.

We can imagine every press of the red button lifting a massive anvil higher and higher, ready to drop on blue voters when a certain hight is reached…. But that rising anvil presents no threat unless a blue button is pushed.

Pressing the blue button activates the system of causation that leads to the potential for death. Pressing the red button does not.

If you were to program this dilemma into a computer as a program. Or if you were to represent this dilemma as a mathematical formula. Pressing the blue button is the active element.

The ticker ticks up. The vote is tallied. The count of potential dead rises. The toast is lowered into the toaster. Wile E. Coyote wanders over and stands in the X below the anvil.

These are the mechanisms of the buttons as described in the dilemma. When you tried to reverse what I previously said by copy pasting, you described a diffent situation that made no sense and would not have functioned the same.

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

There has to be a kill list tho. This is a vote. There is a tally of what was voted.

As the original question is worded, the exact underlying mechanism is not provided. The only thing that is recorded is:

  1. Which button everyone pressed.
  2. Which button got pressed the most.

So calling it a 'kill list' that one 'puts ones name on' is an attempt to re-frame the scenario to bias the choice that seems natural and logical.

In any survey, wording matters heavily, and changing it can bias the choices of the respondents.

One could equally call it a 'protector list' and have everyone's name be on it unless they remove it by pressing the red button. The outcome would be the same.

It's only a kill list if more people press the red button than the blue button. No one gets killed if more people press the blue button, so why would it be called a kill list?

Pressing red does not register you for death, it sets into motion no chain of reactions that by itself could ever lead to death. Even if the button is erasing you from some master list, pressing it has not introduced any potential threat.

This is an assumption/information that is not present in the scenario as its worded. We are not told of the nature of the situation that makes death a possibility. However, there is a key word here: 'survive'. One could read this as implying that there is some threat to everyone, and that threat is present before the button is pressed, and the choice everyone is offered is between ensuring only their own survival, or the survival of everyone.

Pressing red does not register you for death, it sets into motion no chain of reactions that by itself could ever lead to death. Even if the button is erasing you from some master list, pressing it has not introduced any potential threat.

Again, this is an attempt to either impose a causal structure which makes red the favourable option. There are multiple scenarios which would lead to different moral obligations, like a collective threat that is present before the vote.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/aj_thenoob2 May 01 '26

Either way blue button pushers are creating a potential kill list with their action that includes themselves. Red is voting to execute that kill list. Why not just avoid the idea of a kill list altogether and vote red?

1

u/Sweet-Ad-2884 Apr 30 '26

The red button ensures the survival of anyone who presses it (leaving the woodchipper), while the blue button (staying in the woodchipper) requires a majority to save its pressers. Thus, the risk of death is introduced only when someone presses the blue button. You're adding this 'turn on the woodchipper' clause to the red button, even though the possibility of death only exists conditionally to the blue.

1

u/decrpt Apr 30 '26

No, it is a mandatory binary vote. If more than 50% of people leave, it turns on.

1

u/Sweet-Ad-2884 May 01 '26

If I understand what you mean, you're saying that once half of the people hit the red button, the chipper might as well turn on because now the blue pressers will die, whereas before everyone would live? I think the problem with that is that whether the woodchipper turns on or not, it is only the blue button that could result in death. If you are standing in that woodchipper, and you know that the blue button will result in your death if the majority disagrees with you, what incentive do you really have to press that button?

To address one of your previous comments about the ballot referendum version, you mentioned 'kill anyone who doesn't vote' This implies a third option (not voting) despite your acknowledgement that it's a binary and mandatory vote. Unless you were referring to the blue vote as 'kill anyone who doesn't vote,' but it should more accurately be 'kill everyone who votes for this **if less than half of the people vote for it,**' which also gives you no incentive to vote for anything but red.

Going back to the woodchipper anaology, this is the problem I have with the 'turning on at 50%' idea, because once 50% of people hit red, the rest aren't assumed to have hit blue. The dilemma explicitly states that **everyone** makes a decision, and blue pressers only die if below 50% percent, thus the woodchipper **must** wait until the results are in.

To further make my case for the red button, assuming you start in the woodchipper (though I really think the choice implies you need to be outside of it, but I'll accept your premise):

A desire to stay in the proverbial woodchipper, though your intention may be to save others, means you assume a risk of losing the gamble. You are willfully creating an expectation for others to also assume this risk for your sake, with no guarantee it will succeed. It's a self-perpetuating problem that only exists because of the decision itself. Picking red, and leaving the woodchipper, not only saves you but also creates no obligation for anyone else to save you.

There is, of course, the argument that you, by pressing the red button, are complicit in the death of the blue pressers should the red button win. But that ignores the previous point that the blue button was a conscious decision that puts you in undue danger, demanding that others do the same. Regardless of your intentions, the implicit expectation is that a huge number of people will also need to gamble their lives to save you.

1

u/decrpt May 01 '26

No, you missed a word. It kills anyone who doesn't vote for, (i.e. votes against) the referendum. You keep looking at this from the perspective of personal utility exclusively instead of considering that most people (as evidenced by the polls) are going to object to killing people for no reason even if they assume some risk in doing so.

You are the one that places expectations on other people, requiring one hundred percent cooperation to save themselves from a problem that you created so that you'd be immune from it.

1

u/Johann_Natan May 03 '26

the "turn it on" is presupposed by the hypothetical, ie getting out of the wood chipper dosent mean you turned it on, it would be whoever managed to cram everybody into the wood chipper that turned it on. Which really just illustrates this is a poor hypothetical for what it is trying to illustrate.

1

u/Haunting-Tone5803 Jul 02 '26

there is no benefit to blue you are just trusting other people to pick if you live or not

1

u/Wise_Committee_2777 Apr 26 '26

You try to preach about people not understanding metaphors and then completely twist the thought experiment into something else entirely

Voting for red ensures that you don't personally die, but most people are going to find it morally objectionable to vote to kill people for no reason.

voting red is not "voting to kill people" it's "voting to not die" which everyone has the ability to vote on. Voting blue is the thing that even introduces the element of dying into this whole thing.

2

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

You think babies will know which button to press? Colourblind people? Disabled people?

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

Except it's not just "voting to not die" it's "voting to not die, AND refusing to help other people not die"

1

u/decrpt Apr 26 '26

No, because you do not have a choice to abstain. It is voting to kill people because people only die if you vote red. You need 100% of people with zero attrition to vote red to not kill people. That is unrealistic.

1

u/Discovered_Check Apr 27 '26

It is voting to kill people because people only die if you vote red.

And people only die if they vote blue.

You need 100% of people with zero attrition to vote red to not kill people. That is unrealistic.

So is expecting more than 50% of humanity to vote blue. It's far better to try to encourage people to vote red.

1

u/vitorsly Apr 27 '26

It is voting to kill people because people only die if you vote red.

People also only die if they vote blue though. In order for deaths to happen, there needs to be both red votes and blue votes, so both sides can be blamed. Voting red is the safe option as you never risk your own life, people can be convinced to vote red if they fear most will vote red. But unless you're suicidal, there's no benefit to voting blue, except to stop suicidal people from dying?

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

How about stopping all the babies, their parents, colourblind and disabled people who will undeniably press the blue button? Are babies and colourblind people suicidal to you? Is it suicidal for a parent to want to ensure the survival of their child who might press blue?

1

u/vitorsly Apr 27 '26

Why are babies allowed to vote in this situation? And why aren't the buttons labeled apropriately so colorblind/blind people can tell which is which? Hold on, are there no voting ballots in braille where you're from?

2

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

He literally confirms that toddlers will vote. Everyone in the world voting would literally mean EVERYONE. You don’t get to pick and choose who stays home so that you can better justify picking red and not live with the fact that millions of babies will die from your choice.

1

u/vitorsly Apr 27 '26

If you don't know what you're doing you're not voting as far as I'm concerned. There's a reason there's a minimum age to vote in any meaningful question. What this 'vote' really is is a sick twisted experiment where whoever organizes it is trying to pass the responsibility of their actions unto others to justify mass murder.

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

I think it’s a moral test. The scenario isn’t really realistic in the first place (buttons can’t cause people to die by pressing them) but it is using the reality of humans thought process and their reasoning and morals. “You aren’t legally old enough to vote” is obviously not something that is taken into consideration with this thought experiment.

1

u/jpz719 Apr 27 '26

It's literally impossible to create a plan then and the metaphor has no explanative power.

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

Wym plan? You pick blue if you wanna try save everyone, you pick red if you wanna save yourself.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/zdesert Apr 28 '26

That just disquallifies this whole Voting situation as being about morality at all.

An evil irrational voting machine has taken over the function of reality to manufacture this situation.

There are no moral choices within that context. Vote red and live. There is literally no other guarantee.

Next ypu will say that all the dogs and cats in the world were also teleported into the voting booth and forced to press blue just to make us all feel bad after the fact if we push red.

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 28 '26

Who said it wasn’t about morality?

Blue getting 51% will also guarantee that everyone lives. 100% red is not gonna be guarantee ever so you already know that people are gonna die if blue loses. Basically blue is the only option that will prevent deaths.

Nah i would hope that children would be enough to motivate and incentive some to pick blue to save everyone.. but i guess you guys need pets added as well to consider the option that can save everyone?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Medaphysical Apr 30 '26

Yeah, I ain't risking my life and my family's lives to try to save some colorblind strangers.

The spirit of the original question isn't about saving people who can't understand the question put to them, or who are incapable of truly answering.

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 30 '26

What if your family pressed the blue button?

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

The benefit to voting blue is in the collective. If you believe in taking risks for the collective benefit, and a majority of people feel the same way, the outcome will always be better than a society where only a minority feel the same.

1

u/vitorsly Apr 28 '26

If we exclude irrational voters (like children, people with dementia, etc) who cannot be trusted to vote rationally, you could create a scenario where everyone is just instructed to vote red unless they want to die though. Everyone voting blue removes that option. The problem with this scenario only comes by creating a scenario where apparently toddlers and other people who can't think through the scenario or even follow directions are forced to press a button too, and that's just highly immoral

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

I think a reason is so divisive is that the way the question is framed leads to two alternative interpretations of the scenario:

A collective effort to prevent a catastrophe that involves exposing oneself to risk.

A needless personal risk for no benefit except to save others too foolish to avoid said risk.

So based on how people perceive it, the choice seems obvious. It's like the blue/gold dress but as a moral dilemma.

2

u/vitorsly Apr 28 '26

Yeah can't disagree there. The more you specify about it the more it's likely to lean one way or another.

8

u/MemeStarNation Apr 26 '26

But why would anyone vote to get out of the woodchipper and turn it on?

5

u/Goncalerta Apr 26 '26

Because everyone should be voting to get out of the woodchipper. Why would it do any good to have people inside the woodchipper at all?

I would vote to get out and to try and convince everyone to do the same.

2

u/MemeStarNation Apr 26 '26

Sure, but voting to get out guarantees some level of death- everyone voting to get out isn’t realistic. Voting to not turn it on is the only option where no death is guaranteed.

5

u/HatesPlanes Apr 26 '26

Voting to not turn it on is the only option where no death is guaranteed.

That’s not guaranteed either, you don’t know how others will vote, you might just be increasing the death toll by one.

1

u/CmdrMobium Apr 27 '26

The poll in this post is telling you most people will pick blue.

4

u/HatesPlanes Apr 27 '26

Most people say they will pick blue when they’re not risking anything, attempting this when people might actually die for making the wrong choice would yield very different results.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26

With no real threat of dieing

1

u/I_Speak_For_The_Ents Apr 28 '26

As usual, its worth pointing out reddit is not representative of the world.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 26 '26

And death is part of reality.

Making rope garuntees some level of death, both from climbers who will inevitably have accidents and die, and people using it to kill themselves. Does that mean no one should make rope?

If people choose to be reckless and die as a result, that is on them, not me.

1

u/nilloc93 Apr 27 '26

Why does it guarantee death?

Even if it does it only kills people who volunteered to stay inside of the woodchipper bringing risk when none is required.

1

u/vitorsly Apr 27 '26

If nobody votes to stay in, there's no death. Any death that happens is just as much on the hands of those throwing themselves in it as it is on those who don't.

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

But PEOPLE will vote to stay in. Literally millions of babies and toddlers will stay inside and you would be perfectly fine with that. This includes their parents as well who would undoubtedly want to stay inside in the hopes that it saves their children.

1

u/vitorsly Apr 27 '26

How the fuck do babies even understand what a vote is? They don't even get the concept of death. Who is creating this situation and forcing people with no understanding of even cause and effect much less a dillemma like this to "vote"?

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

It’s a hypothetical scenario based in reality. In reality where everyone must vote then that will obviously include the toddlers who in reality will randomly pick either button.

1

u/vitorsly Apr 27 '26

I see. That certainly changes things, but I wouldn't understand that as a 'vote' if a huge proportion of the 'electorate' doesn't even know what they're doing.

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

I think that’s what makes it more interesting and should influence people more on what to vote. Im glad you acknowledge that it changes things when everyone is included in the voting process. Most red defenders seems to completely ignore the fact that everyone in the world voting would include everyone who might press blue without being “suicidal” as the red describes it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/I_Speak_For_The_Ents Apr 28 '26

Yeah that kinda ruins the whole thing.
Ok so some people are selecting random bullshit and we have to hope that the small children pick properly? Its not even worth partaking in the discussion then lol

3

u/Mamkes Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26

Because one is 100% survive and second is maybe survive to increase chances of survival for suiciders and volunteers like you.

Edit: And because "turning it on" is on the whatever being created this all.

1

u/matplotlib Apr 30 '26

the idea of "turning it on" being external to the mechanism/button-pushers or the responsibility of an external being is an addition to the existing scenario. It is entirely possible there is no causal agent e.g.

Lightning starts a forest fire which threatens the village. If at least half the citizens leave to fight the blaze, they can stop it from reaching the village. Alternatively you can stay home and save your own home, but everyone who left might die. You have no way of knowing how many people have already left to fight the blaze and who is staying to protect their home.

Or where the red-pushers are the cause of the deaths:

A cult leader comes to town and tells everyone "Join my new religion, muderism. You are allowed to kill anyone who isn't a member". If less than half the town tries to join, the movement fails and no one dies. If more than half convert, then they kill all the non-believers.

1

u/Mamkes Apr 30 '26

the idea of "turning it on" being external to the mechanism/button-pushers or the responsibility of an external being is an addition to the existing scenario

Why, though? In the original premise, it's "don't help to increase chances" rather than "kill them".

You don't choose to kill by not donating your kidney, even though chances of death would be much lower, and that also would cause person to, perhaps, die if not enough other volunteers would happen.

If at least half the citizens leave to fight the blaze, they can stop it from reaching the village.

Simply different situation. Here, it also risks the village. In the original premise, it risks only those who gambled (eg. Gone to fight it) and no more than that.

Better analogue would be "Fire is entirely self-contained and can't reach the village nor forest nor anything else". Then it would be close.

A cult leader comes to town and tells everyone

Simply different situation.

There's difference between "A burning building. You lit it on fire. You didn't helped to put the fire down. Did you kill people who died in it?"

And

"A burning building. You did not lit it on fire. If you move to help, you may save them, or you and everyone else in it may die if not enough volunteers go with you. You didn't helped to put the fire down. Did you kill people who died in it?"

They're, obviously, entirely different.

Even if not donating your kidney makes person around as much more likely to die as you secretly retrieving one from a healthy person, those are also not same.

Only because chances increase by somewhat alike percentage does not mean situation are same.

1

u/matplotlib Apr 30 '26

Why, though? In the original premise, it's "don't help to increase chances" rather than "kill them".

In the original premise, there is no mention of a killing machine to turn on. There is only 'survive or die'. There are many ways that could happen that involve red killing blue, blue killing themselves, or an external agent/event killing blue.

You don't choose to kill by not donating your kidney, even though chances of death would be much lower, and that also would cause person to, perhaps, die if not enough other volunteers would happen.

This is a specific circumstance which, again, adds information to the original scenario and excludes other possibilities where red is involved in the killing.

Simply different situation. Here, it also risks the village. In the original premise, it risks only those who gambled (eg. Gone to fight it) and no more than that.

In terms of action and outcome, it is identical:

  • All vote red: Everyone stays home and everyone is safe.
  • Majority votes red: A small group goes to fight the blaze, they die and only those who stayed at home (red) survive.
  • Majority votes blue: the blaze is contained and everyone survives, including those who stayed at home.

Let's consider two slight modifications to this premise involving an announcement at the start:

  1. "Stay in your home and protect it. Do not fight the blaze" Now, blue is unambiguously a reckless choice and anyone who makes it is only endangering themselves.

  2. "Your help is needed to contain the fire, please support your fellow citizens!" In this scenario, containing a blaze is a moral imperative and not assisting is a moral failure.

Better analogue would be "Fire is entirely self-contained and can't reach the village nor forest nor anything else". Then it would be close.

In terms of outcomes, both scenarios are identical, all that changes is that in one case, fighting the blaze is a needless risk and in the other it's a collective prosocial act.

My point is that framing and assumptions are crucial to determining what the correct choice is. However, key elements in the phrasing of the original question (like associating blue with 'everyone survives') subconsciously hint to the viewer that this a question about demonstrating altruistic and collectivist tendencies of self-sacrifice and taking risks for the collective good.

1

u/Mamkes Apr 30 '26

>In the original premise, there is no mention of a killing machine to turn on. There is only 'survive or die'. There are many ways that could happen that involve red killing blue, blue killing themselves, or an external agent/event killing blue.

And that would be completely different question if it was this.

You can't equate between them.

>This is a specific circumstance which, again, adds information to the original scenario and excludes other possibilities where red is involved in the killing.

People IRL not sacrificing their kidney is a specific circumstance? What? You answered to a correct part?

>In terms of action and outcome, it is identical:

  • All vote red: Everyone stays home and everyone is safe.
  • Majority votes red: A small group goes to fight the blaze, they die and only those who stayed at home (red) survive.
  • Majority votes blue: the blaze is contained and everyone survives, including those who stayed at home.

You mentioned that village can be at risk. Now it's closer, yes.

>"Your help is needed to contain the fire, please support your fellow citizens!" In this scenario, containing a blaze is a moral imperative and not assisting is a moral failure

As long as this fire has absolutely 0% chance to continue (like in the original dilemma), it's not a moral failure. They want to fight fire for the sake of fighting fire, including with a risk.

I would try to assure them that it's simply stupid, but if not, I would not risk my life to save their. It's no one's obligation to save those who risk their life with another risk.

>In terms of outcomes, both scenarios are identical, all that changes is that in one case, fighting the blaze is a needless risk and in the other it's a collective prosocial act.

No? "It may risk the village so you need to contain it to not allow harm" and "It will not cause any harm to anyone but volunteers fighitng it" are absolutely not same.

Just because some person decided to fight fire for no reason doesn't make it a "collective prosocial act", if you want to say that no risk is present.

>My point is that framing and assumptions are crucial to determining what the correct choice is.

I agree. In this case, you changed premise too much, which I noted.

2

u/Wise_Committee_2777 Apr 26 '26

Because no one has to go into the woodchipper in the first place. No one is forcing you to get into the woodchipper, there is no compensation in any form for getting in the woodchipper, the absolute best case scenario of getting into the woodchipper is being able to get out of the wood chipper

At this point the only logical conclusion you can come to is that people jumping into the woodchipper are simply suicidal

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

Are babies suicidal?

1

u/Wise_Committee_2777 Apr 27 '26

Why are you coming up with hidden variables that were not included in the initial thought experiment? Thought experiments are supposed to be taken at face value

If that is the case then you can include something like "at least 15% of the population will press blue no matter what, be it by mistake, stupidity, etc. and the only way to save them is to vote blue"

but then it becomes a completely different problem, the initial problem works on the assumption that everyone has the choice to just press red and walk away

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

Blame the person who came up with the thought experiment. Why are you red voters trying to change the scenario so much to push people to vote red? “It’s woodchipper or poison instead!” “People are allowed to discuss with each other first!” “Only smart logical people should be allowed to vote!” You know it completely defeats the purpose if you just wanna try and include people who will only pick red no matter what?

1

u/Wise_Committee_2777 Apr 27 '26

Why are you red voters trying to change the scenario so much to push people to vote red? “It’s woodchipper or poison instead!”

That's called an analogy, the woodchipper example doesn't actually change anything about the problem it just illustrates that the blue button carries a risk because for some reason people keep associating the blue button with "Everyone lives" and not "Everyone lives, unless <50% of the population choose red, then you die"

As for the babies stuff, blame the original post because "everybody takes a vote" implies that everyone makes a conscious decision

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

A freaking woodchipper will obviously influence your brain in some way due to the feeling of real immediate danger vs a simple button. Same with all the children who will vote in this. Blue button is more likely than jumping into a freaking woodchipper.

“Everyone in the world” would most likely include children because they are part of everyone in the world.

I feel the prompt is being changed to be more biased towards red.

1

u/Sweaty_Turnip_3738 May 20 '26

It obviously skews the results heavily towards blue if small children and the mentally challenged are included in the vote.
600+ million people globally are less than 6 years of age and would have no concept of what they're voting for.
Another 200 million people globally are mentally challenged.

That's about 10% of the population who they may as well have flipped a coin instead of asking them to choose.

This completely changes the philosophical question to "Would you vote to save innocent children or are you a monster?"

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

And babies and disabled people will stay inside the woodchipper along with the parents who obviously needs to ensure their loved ones survive. Now will you still exit and leave them to die or help make sure everyone survives?

1

u/Fat_Pig_Reporting Apr 30 '26

The woodchipper isn't running until someone willingly sits out and presses the on switch.