AIBU to wonder which button people would press to survive?

Eugenics would be

a) The arsehole who set the thing up in the first place
b) People making/cajoling/persuading/pleading because 'it's kind/noble/Dulce et Decorum est caeruleum globulum premere to persuade others to press the blue button.

Yes. Unsurprisingly, self-preservation is one of the strongest instincts that humans, like all other animals, possess.

So when faced with a situation like this, it makes sense to assume that most people, were their lives actually on the line, unless they misunderstand the parameters of the situation, will ultimately press the button that assures they will live (regardless of what they say beforehand).

Besides, it's logical anyway, as it ensures that no matter what happens, I'll be fine, as well as the people I care about most (all red button pushers). So why on earth would I introduce the pointless and unnecessary risk of death by pushing blue? It's utterly inexplicable as to why someone would choose that, unless they had a loved one who they were sure would press blue, and so would press blue to try to save that person.

So why would anyone choose blue? Why unnecessarily introduce the risk of death? It's so illogical that I'm honestly shocked anyone would consider it.

In addition, you're not morally responsible for what other people choose to do. It is not immoral to 'put on your own oxygen mask first' - and if others decide to panic and throw their oxygen mask away, that's not your problem, morally speaking.

"If you press red, everyone survives except..."

It's the 'except' that makes the difference.
Why doesn't everyone vote blue? Because they know that there will be people who vote red. Because we know some people will choose to save themselves first, we all have to vote red to survive. It is framed as the 'logical' choice, but it's only logical if you presume that other's will act for self-preservation (which based on this thread is the correct shout!)

But pressing red DOES hurt other people if less than 50% of them choose blue.

Therefore, it is not ridiculous to choose blue. Even if it is illogical.

You are not morally responsible for other people choosing to press blue instead of red[...] I didn't think I was. But I still don't want them to die. [...]while knowing the terms of the situation, and knowing that red is the only logical choice.

I think the second sentence is a jump. Knowing the terms of the situation does not mean knowing that red is the only logical choice.

This question isn't a prisoner's dilema, and it's fine, no need to make it into one.

It's interesting how even this one - which seems to have an obvious good answer springs a discussion - partially based on misunderstanding the question, partially based on virtue signaling, plus some other reasons.

Actually, if we see it as a "practical word" question, not one assuming coordinated ideal population (like the prisoners and hats or prisoners and light bulb problems) the level of misunderstanding in this thread shows, that the "obviously red, it doesn't harm anyone" answer isn't that clear cut.

Red

I'm so confused by the people saying "I wouldn't want to live in a world of people who press the red button"

Like... People who have decent reading comprehension and understand logic? It's got zero moral/ethical angles. If you press red, everyone survives except people who haven't got the logic to figure out that red is the option for maximum overall population survival. You're not responsible for the other people's deaths. It's not a complex problem.

Sadly, the fact that blue is currently winning on the vote says that my view of humanity is over-optimistic.

It's not a moral dilemma, really.

Self-preservation that doesn't actively hurt anyone else is generally what people place the most importance on.

The sensible choice is to press red, and assure your own life. If everyone does that, then everyone lives. It's the simplest choice ever. To do anything else is to unnecessarily introduce the risk of death. Why would anyone do that?

Pressing red doesn't hurt anyone else - except those who press blue, if under 50% of them do it. And we've already established it would be ridiculous to do that.

You are not morally responsible for other people choosing to press blue instead of red, while knowing the terms of the situation, and knowing that red is the only logical choice.

So there's really no moral issue at play here.

Wjy wouldn't everyone press red? Then everyone lives

For a multi-person Prisoner's Dilemma you need the setup to be:

If less than 10% of people press blue, everyone who pressed RED dies. If 10%-50% press blue, everyone who presses BLUE dies. If 50-90% of people press blue then everyone survives, but if less than 10% press Red then everyone on the entire planet will die, including everyone who pressed Red. So there's no guarantee of survival for everyone and you need some people to press red to maximise potential for survival, but not too many, and you need the majority of people to press blue, but not everyone.

Blue.

Obviously.

But it is a moral dilemma because you can’t expect everybody to choose the logical answer of choosing red. Therefore you have to decide if you only want the logical people to survive or reduce the chance of death for those who choose blue. In a perfect world everyone would instantly choose red but realistically lots will not so we have to factor that in to our decisions. Wiping out all those dumb enough to vote blue and being pleased about the increased average intelligence of the survivors is not a good thing…

What colour is the best for someone with suicidal ideation? Asking for a friend.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood.

Not surprising for a blue button pusher... (That is a joke by the way, the premise of this is so laughable it really isn't worth getting angry over or defensive of your choice at all).

I and my loved ones will be just fine. You pushing blue only endangers yourself. If anything, pushing blue is quite selfish really, expecting everyone else to risk their lives just to save your arse.

I think whoever formulated this has totally misunderstood the "prisoner's dilemma" setup, so framed the question wrong.

In the OP scenario, it's obvious that everyone should and will press red. Only the terminally stupid would press blue because no one needs to press blue and everyone who presses red will survive in any circumstance so if anyone presses blue it will increase the average intelligence of the human race. There is no incentive to press blue because there's nothing at stake that you might lose if you press red.

In a the classic "prisoner's dilemma" there are just two people with the buttons. If both people press blue then they are both safe, if one person presses blue and the other presses red then the person who presses blue is punished/dies/is imprisoned and the person who presses red is safe, but if both press red then they both are punished/die/are imprisoned.

This makes it a genuine dilemma in a way that the scenario in the OP totally fails to do

Well look, I know nothing about game theory and I have never pretended to nor thought the question recreated in the OP was anything to do with it.

I do not think this is a simple choice of everyone lives or everyone dies, because people are not perfectly logical, and it is unlikely that 100% of people would choose the same way. People have different reasons for making a choice.

When I initially saw the question posed, what I processed was red = people die, blue = nobody dies. So I picked the nobody dies button which seemed completely obvious and logical to me.

But I do think this is probably why I am not very good at games, because I tend to pick whatever feels right or nice at the time rather than actually thinking through the scenarios of what if I chose A/B and what if the other player chooses A/B and vice versa. If it's laid out like this, in a table, then it's much clearer that choosing blue is a risk. But I didn't especially think of the risk to myself when I initially read the question. I just thought, obviously I'll pick the option where nobody dies. Call it stupid or a lack of thinking it through if you want. I am not being virtuous though. I just would generally prefer a scenario where nobody dies. It seems like the best outcome and so that's the outcome I would vote for.

In fact even looking at the table I still want to vote blue despite red having no chance of death in it. I think I look at the box which contains my death and I think "Well I REALLY don't want red to win... I can't do anything but vote blue!"

Yes, it's hardly cutting language, anyway 😅 I think calling people eugenicists is much harsher!

I am struggling to get my head around anyone being offended by me saying "anyone who chooses blue is a pillock" in a fantasy scenario that is so unlikely to happen as to be laughable!

i’d Press red, if you had anything about you so would you. If everyone presses red, then that’s 0% of blue which is under 50% blue, so everyone survives.

Yes, I don't understand getting angry, or calling names – but I do think it can make for really interesting discussion.

I will be pressing Red to help save the people who were too stupid to realise they should press Red.

That's not how eugenics works.

Because its a logic puzzle and its fun to see.

Its the same as the "one person tells the truth, one always lies" puzzle.

dont be ridiculous! haha!

Its a logic puzzle and the only correct answer is for everyone to press red, because thats the only way to make sure everyone survives because you cannot guarantee that everyone who says they will press blue will actually do that.