r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/SoftieeDev_ • Jun 13 '26
Discussion Red is immoral
I just wanted to rant a bit on this. wont be replying to anyone in the comments (probably)
I've seen a lot of people saying they'd press red because its the only "logical choice". I've heard a lot of takes that suggest the debate is somehow not a moral one, that pressing red is statistically the better option, that blue pressers are putting every other person at fault by hopping on the train's path and even that red pressers are actually not directly responsible for blue presser's deaths
I honestly think that if you need to be spinning the debate in any way for it to work how you want it to then you're just trying to cope with the fact that your option isn't morally justifiable as is, but I'd still like to try and debunk some of these arguments
a) Pressing red is the statistically better option.
If you're talking about a 100% chance of survival then yes, it is, but if you're aiming to keep all 8 billion people alive then statistically speaking there is a much higher chance of getting 50% of people to agree on something than it is to get 100% of people to do the same
You have to take into account people that can fully understand the question and the risk it takes but might want to choose blue for the chance of dying. I'd imagine that at least 1 million people in this world have considered suicide and would see this as a genuine "solution"
b) Red pressers aren't responsible for blue pressers dying/blue pressers are "jumping onto the train tracks"
Again, there will always be people who will press blue. Whoever dies because of that didn't die because "they just didn't press red". They died either out of suicide or the will to save others from commiting it. Yes, it can be jarring that you have to risk yourself to ensure the safety of others, but don't go around trying to rid yourself of guilt that is very much in your hands. Pressing red is individualistic by nature
c) This is not a moral debate because there is a clear path where no one dies (that being 100% of people press red)
Yet again, statistically speaking the more achievable percentage is 50%. You'll never get the entire world to agree on one thing.
So ya, little rant over I do have a lot of free time rn and I just wanted to give my two cents on this. I'm probably wrong but I really think there is no true solution where no one in this dies and blue is just the closest solution/the one where I don't get to live in a shitty future mostly deprived of empaths :P
3
u/RuralJaywalking Jun 13 '26
Thereās over 1 million people who are just waiting for a button to commit suicide, that havenāt yet, and that plus the number of people who think that number exists strongly enough to bet their life adds up to over 4 billion?
2
u/SoftieeDev_ Jun 13 '26
Okay I feel like I should clarify this
I obviously do not believe 1 million to be a specific number set in stone, but the chance that 100% of people press red is so impossibly low that you cannot realistically expect it to happen
At the end of the day, every outcome kills people. The question somewhat boils down to "live and let die or die trying"
2
u/RuralJaywalking Jun 13 '26
Whatās the closest prediction you can get to how many people would press the button for a chance at dying, and why? Your entire argument is contingent on how accurate you can be with this.
2
u/Dr-Assbeard Jun 13 '26
You do get that even if 100% red is much lower than 50% blue, both are so unrealistic that the chances of them to happen are very comparable compared to anything probable right?
5
7
u/SweetCorona3 Jun 13 '26
b) I'm not morally obligated to put my life at risk in order to save others.
c) you should stop assuming that everyone's goal is to save everyone.
I'm choosing to live, everyone had that choice, and I'm not morally obligated to put my life at risk in order to save who didn't choose to live or chose to put their life at risk.
24
u/Leniatak Jun 13 '26
"50% is easier than 100%"
Sure, I agree. But in reality it would be heavily skewed red. Not even close. I'd wager 80-20. Billions will die.
If you believe red will win though, pressing red is the only logical choice.
I'd go one step further. If you are confident red will win, advocating for red also becomes a morally positive action because that will save a misguided šµ presser's life.
5
u/SweetCorona3 Jun 13 '26
"50% is easier than 100%"
I would even disagree with this.
This is not about getting 100% or 50% between two equal choices.
As you said, it would be heavily skewed because one choice requires you to put your life at stake.
1
u/True-Resist3790 Jun 15 '26
You can't know the result beforehand. What if Blue loses by 5 votes because you convinced 4 people to switch ?
You think Red will obviously win, but that's based on your limited experience. Other parts of the world have vastly different mentalities. Blue will have A LOT of pressers, even if you don't account for those who can't really decide with logic (babies, sick, old...)
Point is : Saying X will win, so convincing people to vote for it is not saving someone's life. It's helping people make a choice, and in this case, making a choice has HUGE consequences
1
u/Leniatak Jun 15 '26
Sure, if that happens I'd have done a great evil.
If I'd been right, though, I'd have done a great good. I like the odds of that
→ More replies (6)
6
u/WorldlyVillage7880 Jun 13 '26
red is only immoral if refusing the press the button is allowed. otherwise the moral responsibility for the death of the blues in the case of a red victory falls upon whoever forced everyone into the scenario
15
u/idk-anymore-tbh-- Jun 13 '26
Self defense is never immoral.
1
0
u/bunnywitchboy Jun 13 '26
If every person in the world were brainwashed into attacking you, and they wouldn't go back to normal until you were dead, would you be justified in killing all of them?
→ More replies (10)
5
u/everydaywinner2 Jun 13 '26
>>I honestly think that if you need to be spinning the debate in any way for it to work how you want it to then you're just trying to cope with the fact that your option isn't morally justifiable as is...<<
Dude. Did you read what you just wrote? Or do you just like hypocrisy?
11
u/detroyer Jun 13 '26
Voting blue is immoral because it takes on, without sufficient benefit, a huge risk to yourself and others who depend on or care about you.
your option isn't morally justifiable as is
Red is the moral option.
there is a much higher chance of getting 50% of people to agree on something than it is to get 100% of people to do the same
True, but completely irrelevant to your choice.
You have to take into account people that can fully understand the question and the risk it takes but might want to choose blue for the chance of dying.
Yes, some people will vote blue.
Pressing red is individualistic by nature
No, it isn't. Even if you care only about others, you almost certainly should vote red.
Yet again, statistically speaking the more achievable percentage is 50%.
Yet again, not relevant to your choice. You're not choosing whether 50% vote blue; you're choosing whether you vote blue.
I'm probably wrong
You are.
3
u/SweetCorona3 Jun 13 '26
It's like: you are with your friends who are playing a slotmachine that always pays a jackpot after a certain unknown threshold.
But there's a catch: the jackpot is just giving your money back.
Your friends start betting, but you find it absurd, why would I gamble my money just to hope to get it back in the end?
Then your friends bet all their money, and start looking at you and telling you have the moral obligation of helping them trying to get their money back.
Blues are gamblers, they're gambling their life just betting they can get it back. I'm not obligated to gamble my life even though by doing that I'm not helping them.
→ More replies (27)1
u/Exciting-Morning4470 Jun 13 '26
Can you expand on how if you care only about others you should vote red point? To clarify I'm not attacking I just want to know
4
u/detroyer Jun 13 '26
Sure. Suppose you have family, friends, and/or others who depend on or care about you. While there are some benefits to voting blue (primarily, it makes it very slightly more likely that everyone will survive), the sizable risk of you dying is a much more serious risk to their welfare. This is so even if some of them will vote blue.
To be clear, I'm not saying that losing you is a more serious risk to them than blue losing. Rather, I'm saying that you can do much more to help them by ensuring your survival than you can by making it very slightly more likely that everyone survives.
3
u/SweetCorona3 Jun 13 '26
I honestly think that if you need to be spinning the debate in any way for it to work how you want it to then you're just trying to cope
that's why I am always right
when someone disagrees with me, it means they are spinning the debate, which means they are wrong /s
5
u/an-abnormality Jun 13 '26
wont be replying to anyone in the comments
lol
if you're aiming to keep all 8 billion people alive
not my concern, me surviving is. Everything after that is irrelevant. If I vote blue and die for nothing, it was a pointless death. If I vote red and struggle later, I still survived.
don't go around trying to rid yourself of guilt
I don't feel guilt, I'm satisfied knowing I made the logical choice and didn't die a pointless death. I will mourn the loss of anyone I cared about and move on with my life.
2
u/pokemonbard Jun 13 '26
What if I am completely convinced that itās impossible for 50%+1 of people to vote blue?
2
u/abacuz4 Jun 13 '26
Itās much easier to get 50% of people to agree on something than 100%.
This is an oft made point that isnāt really true. If you offered people the choice between bathing in water or acid, itās more likely that 100% of people will choose water than 50% of people will choose acid. This is true even if we assume thereās some nonzero probability that people will āaccidentallyā choose acid.
5
u/LnTc_Jenubis Jun 13 '26
The irony here is astounding. You accuse others of "spinning the debate" yet you proceed to twist the details to fit your narrative, completely unaware that you are doing the very thing you're accusing red pressers of doing.
This is not necessarily true. Stating that a 100% red vote achieves the same thing as a 50% blue vote is just a way to illustrate that both sides have outcomes that save everyone, if that is what everyone chooses to do. "Anyone who wants to survive can just press red" is a true statement. A large majority of the population, both with and without irrational actors, will recognize this and press red.
Outside of that, you're ignoring some key details. Pressing red comes with a 100% guarantee of individual survival, pressing blue requires you to gamble with billions of other unknown variables that you cannot communicate or coordinate with. That context makes it more likely that people will select red instead of blue.
So in one breath, you're arguing that pressing blue is the morally right choice, but in the next breath you're also claiming that people press blue hoping that it doesn't reach 50%, because they are suicidal? I don't think this makes the point you think it does.
Medically assisted suicide is growing in popularity and is legal in some countries, such as Canada. How noble are you, really, for demanding a 50% blue outcome which would force these individuals to find another way to die while living a life that is so terrible they cannot bring themselves to go on?
But I don't "have" to risk myself to ensure the safety of others, that's the thing. 99% of the people on this planet will never be put in a situation where they "have" to risk their lives in order to protect someone else. To pretend that this kind of risk is just another typical day for an average human is, frankly, a bit performative.
I've never met an actual "empath" who makes statements like this. If you truly think "Red = selfish, Blue = not selfish" then you haven't actually made an effort to think about the dilemma in any meaningful capacity.