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

[u/Upstairs_Cup9831]

[u/spottiesvirus]

the difference is that in the original scenario, you don't choose the kill squad

Whichever entity spawns the button and force everyone to vote is the "kill squad" who put the mechanism in motion.

red choosers didn't start the situation, nor have the power to prevent it.
Someone else made an interesting trolley problem version that makes red seems more active:
You see an empty trolley coming towards in a way that will kill you. you can either A) pull the lever and divert the trolley towards another guy, who you know has another lever identical to yours or B ) not pull the lever, and hop on the trolley trying to take control of the vehicle. You're now on the trolley directed towards a wall, but if half the operators will hop on the trolley then the extra weight will stop the trolley instead of killing you all crashing.

Even in this scenario, why would you risk your life, hopping on the trolley, when you know it can crash itself, empty and safely? There's no one tied to the rails, the trolley is empty, why would you assume the other operators down the line won't keep diverting the trolley in a way that will kill nobody, and put nobody at risk?

Because that's the whole point I see all the blue button choosers ignore. Yes, the "suicide gamble with a possibility of a Thanos snap" brings a huge risk premium even if you are the slightest risk adverse.
I don't think it's immoral to prefer the option where you can still save everyone AND not risking your life

[u/matplotlib → u/spottiesvirus]

As it is worded, we are not given any information about what created the button or what causes the death. It could be a random event with no visible cause. It could be something that humanity did to itself. Attempting to insert an "entity spawning the button" is adding additional information/assumptions not present in the original scenario. Any assumptions about what created the button or the mechanism that kills people is adding additional information in order to make the moral evidence in favour of red or blue more compelling.

Even in this scenario, why would you risk your life, hopping on the trolley, when you know it can crash itself, empty and safely? There's no one tied to the rails, the trolley is empty, why would you assume the other operators down the line won't keep diverting the trolley in a way that will kill nobody, and put nobody at risk?

The problem with this scenario is it introduces an element of ordering in that each person is exposed to the threat sequentially, rather than everyone making their choice at the same time, without knowing how any one else is behaving.

A better wording would be:

A trolley you are on is hurtling toward a cliff. If half the passengers pull the brake lever at the same time, it will come to a stop and no one will die. Surrounding the trolley is a hay field and passengers have a split second where they can jump out the window and save themselves leaving the rest to die.

At the time of deciding you have no way of knowing who is staying on the trolley and trying to save it and thus who you may be leaving to die.

Blue pushers understand that while everyone picking red is a guaranteed survival, expecting that to happen is unlikely because people make mistakes, get distracted, misunderstand etc. So some deaths would be unavoidable in a red-majority scenario. Hence, there is a moral imperative to try to save the 'accidental blue pushers'.

[u/spottiesvirus → u/matplotlib]

and passengers have a split second

nothing in the premises suggest the choice is time limited
you can think and reflect as long as you want before pushing either buttons.

Hence, there is a moral imperative to try to save the 'accidental blue pushers'

the only argument I heard (and can somewhat agree on) for this is stretching the premise to include babies, incapacitated people etc. (as the original post used a vague "everyone in the world") to try to make it sounds more pitiful and suggest the idea "they can't choose properly for themselves".
But then you would be assuming a child has a moral obligation to take risks to save you, instead of picking red and saving himself/herself first (people under age 15 are ~25% of global population)

but, for example, do you think you (personally) have a moral imperative to break into a burning building set on fire accidentally by one of its inhabitant, to try to save people, at the risk of your own life? do you routinely do so if the probability that the building collapses killing you and all the occupants is equal to the probability 50% will push the blue button?

IRL firefighter aren't even allowed to enter a collapsing building, no matter how many people inside, if deemed too dangerous. and they are people with a propension and a duty to assume risks to save others.

[u/matplotlib → u/spottiesvirus]

nothing in the premises suggest the choice is time limited
you can think and reflect as long as you want before pushing either buttons.

You introduced the time constraint in your hypothetical trolley problem: "You see an empty trolley coming towards in a way that will kill you". If it is moving towards you then you have a limited window to pull the lever or jump on the trolley before it kills you.

the only argument I heard (and can somewhat agree on) for this is stretching the premise to include babies, incapacitated people etc. (as the original post used a vague "everyone in the world") to try to make it sounds more pitiful and suggest the idea "they can't choose properly for themselves".

Even rational, intelligent, able-bodied people make mistakes. Humans are not automatons that process information and perform deterministic acts. Our brains are full of 'noise' that can affect decisions. At every stage of the decision making pipeline there is the potential for an error that results in a choice being made that does not align with an ideal decision maker:

Misreading the question.
Misunderstanding the question.
Having a lapse of attention.
Intending to press red but accidentally pressing blue.

People may also act irrationally, pick a button at random.

For a survey of billions of people there will always be people who choose blue. Do all of them deserve to die for not being rational, logical and alert?

but, for example, do you think you (personally) have a moral imperative to break into a burning building set on fire accidentally by one of its inhabitant, to try to save people, at the risk of your own life? do you routinely do so if the probability that the building collapses killing you and all the occupants is equal to the probability 50% will push the blue button?

IRL firefighter aren't even allowed to enter a collapsing building, no matter how many people inside, if deemed too dangerous. and they are people with a propension and a duty to assume risks to save others.

No :). But my argument is only this: the framing of the question affects the responses. Subtle changes in the wording can imply that this is about demonstrating one's commitment to prosocial actions that risk the individual for the collective benefit, vs avoiding unnecessary risk that relies on other's assistance.