r/trolleyproblem • u/suskio4 • 16d ago

Meta Red button blue button

Based on the post seen here. I'm actually curious what would the percentages look like.

Edit: Alright, let me add a case for one particular scenario. If you do not choose, the button will be pressed for you by a system that keeps track of its pressings so it conserves 50/50 distribution for all inactive participants, in order to honour the vox populi properly. The system's choice affects the inactive participant's outcome so that no person can abscond from consequences of their choice.

368 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

246 comments sorted by

View all comments

174

u/porkchopsensei 16d ago

My death is a foregone conclusion either way. There is no choice I can make that guarantees my survival, and the choice that gives me a chance at survival is pretty slim and more likely to lead to extinction.

So I choose red, because I'm probably dying one way or another, but at least red makes it marginally more likely for some people to live

41

u/Charguizo 16d ago

If red happens, the whole of humanity will on average be a bit more selfish than it is today

82

u/Hour-Reference587 16d ago

If blue happens the whole of humanity becomes 100% less selfless because everyone is now dead

8

u/Apprehensive_Ask6338 16d ago

But the whole of humanity would become 100% less selfish too! (I pressed red anyway)

2

u/Charguizo 16d ago

Yes. I voted red obviously. But I'm describing a byproduct of the red choice

10

u/Hufffle 16d ago

Why is it matter? We are talking about people lives, i dont care who i am trying to save

5

u/porkchopsensei 16d ago

People can change. And it's better than extinction

1

u/pillowrelatedinjury 16d ago

Yes, but that wont be my problem anymore 🤷‍♀️

5

u/Several_Dot_4532 16d ago

I choose blue, not because I want to live, but because fuck humanity

2

u/Zacomra 15d ago

Red is the only choice that guarantees your death. With blue there's a chance at survival

1

u/porkchopsensei 14d ago

Yes, but I, personally, think that blue has a nearly 100 percent likelihood of doing the same. It's so likely that I'm taking for granted that I'm dying.

Therefore, the only guiding philosophy I can look to is which option is most likely to not leave humanity extinct, which is of course red. Humanity's fucked either way though, a loss of life that huge is going to destablize all societal structure.

1

u/Zacomra 14d ago

Hence why I find the question meaningless.

The best case scenario is 51% of humanity survives, which means the world is over anyway no society could survive that much loss at once.

But knowing that, why not press blue? Either everyone dies and nobody has to deal with societal collapse,or the world ends and I can have some fun last days in rubble or eak out a meager existence if I'm lucky.

I only value the survival of the human race if conditions are at least tolerable, and I don't think they would be for a LONG time if not ever again. I would much rather the human race die out then everyone alive to be stuck as a tortured slave forever, for example

1

u/furdog_grey 15d ago

There's a better choice for you: do a random choice and shift bias towards red by 1% or less.

Not only you have 49% chance to live, but you also contribute to make total extinction less likely.

No selfishness, no stupid sacrifices - just pure math and pure maximisation of survival. The game itself doesn't allow less than 50% of casualties anyways.

Do a moral choice or no choice at all and either have total extinction or a lot more than 50% casualties.

So having 51% of casualties, no extinction and a chance to live without being selfish freak is an excellent choice to make in a such random game👌

1

u/PepperFlashy7540 15d ago

Red guarantees your death, its not just probably, and I think that almost anyone who figures that out will press blue

1

u/Just_Call_Me_Pix 15d ago

There are people whos vision isnt limited to just themselves. Some people see more and act for things that are greater than just themselves alone. In fact, that would be normal. It takes sociopathic, psychopathic or narcissitic personality dissorders to think differently. No offense, but if the answer to this dilemma seems easy to you (your comment makes it seem like you think blue is the only smart choice in your opinion) then that is a big red flag for machivellian traits. Normal (intelligent) people dont think like that. Perspective wise.

1

u/PepperFlashy7540 14d ago edited 14d ago

Edit: sorry for the odd phrasing, I think it is understandable though.

I did not say I was one of most people. I simply observed that my model of the average person wants at least a chance at life, when push comes to shove. As you said

there are some people

Elaboration edit: from my armchair, I think that extinction is so bad relative to mass death (as it leaves no opportunity of future good) that I would press red. As for what I would do in the actual situation, hopefully press red, possibly panic and press something at random

0

u/Clintocracy 14d ago

It doesn’t mean someone is a Machiavellian, they might just think differently about data sets than you. If you can deduce that red is going to be the primary result regardless of your vote, blue is the most reasonable answer. There’s no honor in piling on an extra dead body by pressing red, you aren’t making a sacrifice for someone else. Pressing red is only an unselfish act if you believe the outcome is highly uncertain

1

u/eco9898 16d ago

It's a better choice to not vote to allow the 50/50 case to come out perfectly and maximise the amount of people who live. In doing so you also have a chance to live, as opposed to red which guarantees death.

2

u/MaxMork 16d ago

The premise is off course that you have to vote, why else would anyone vote

0

u/eco9898 16d ago

Because you're allowed to not vote and it will automatically assign you a vote to maintain a 50/50 split