AIBU to wonder which button people would press to survive?

The blender situation is exactly the same as the button situation.

There is no reason to get in the blender, or to press the blue button.

People may pretend they will vote blue because they mistakenly think that is the 'kind' thing to do online, but when it really comes down to it I would hope self preservation and logic would kick in.

We are not discussing game theory, we are discussing the OP‘s question

But red doesn't come with a risk? If everyone picked red there would be no consequences which is not true if you chose blue.

No, pressing red doesn’t come with risk because philosophically speaking, no one would pick blue. There is no personal risk to choose red and there is no group risk to everyone choosing red. There is personal and group risk to choosing blue. Everyone would choose red because we would all understand that everyone else can u first and the question and see the obvious choice with no risk or downside.

This isn’t game theory. How many times do I need to explain an actually moral dilemma game theory scenario?

If you cannot see the risk of choosing yourself knowing others may die, then that's definitely one approach. It doesn't make it the definite answer, but a great starting point for debate, as we've seen on this thread. What has been shocking is how quick people have been to call 'blue pushers' morons, and that the world would be better off without them. To the point where blue pushers are saying they feel stupid. Very interesting social experiment!

You are clearly wrong or all the answers would say red. That’s the whole point of the question, it’s that people think there is a moral dilemma when actually the logical common sense choice would be to red but as you can see, loads of people think that picking blue is somehow morally better? Thinking that people who choose blue could be mentally impaired or have accidentally pressed it and we need to save those people by also choosing blue. That’s why it is going viral and there is a lot of discussion around it.

Tbf getting rid of the pointless virtue signalers would improve the human race so it's a win win scenario.

No one would get in the blender. It can run empty and no one gets hurt. There needs to be another outcome, like a small amount of damage to everyone if no one gets in the blender.

Game theory has three outcomes.

A)Great for everyone in the group.

B)Good for the person who “betrays” but really bad for the person who doesn’t.

C)Somewhat bad for all, but at least guarantees survival/prize/freedom - just not as good as it would be if everyone cooperated.

Red comes with a risk for everyone who doesn't pick red. The risk is, am I willing in act in self interest knowing others could die. The risk for blues is am I willing to put my life in other's hands to save lives. Both come with risk, it's just which risk you feel most comfortable with.

I said my own children would have been morons if they pressed blue.

Which they would have been. There is no moral or logical reason to press blue whatsoever.

Red obviously . Everyone who presses red survives.

It’s not an ethical dilemma because it has an easy solution with no risk or negative outcome or downsides for anyone. So everyone would choose red.

For this to be game theory, ethical dilemma then there needs to be an actual downside to choosing red, that people can weigh up against the possible rewards and bigger downsides. As I’ve outlines above.

And this is why posting about truly hypothetical situations that will never happen are stupid when you call the people who would pick different to you as "morons".

Because it comes with risk, whereas red comes with no risk for anyone whatsoever. The only people at risk are those who don’t agree to choose red. And that would be their choice and they only hurt themselves.

That’s why this doesn’t work. It isn’t a game theory question. Because there are no bad outcomes for people choose red, and it guarantees survival so everyone would choose it. There isn’t a question here.
There needs to be some kind of risk to choose red. As I’ve outlined above. To make this a real dilemma.

Red Button. Its the only scenario in which you are guaranteed to survive.

For anyone feeling stupid about pressing blue - don't. It's just different approaches to an ethical question. There is no right or wrong answer, the point is to encourage ethical debate. Love how sure of themselves the red buttons are though!

I asked dc and thankfully I didn't raise morons.

All three immediately said red.

But why would they press blue? The only option with a good outcome is red. There is absolutely no down side to everyone choosing red. So everyone would choose it because it guarantees survival with no downsides. So no one would choose blue. Unless they are deeply stupid, because there is no down side and it guarantees that you live - everyone would push it.

Thats why this is a stupid question . It isn’t game theory. There needs to be a personal downside to choose red to make it into a dilemma, but with enough temptation that some people might do it. And that risks everyone.

Like… you can press red or blue.

A) If everyone pressed blue, then everyone survives with a healthy life guaranteed to 100.

B) If anyone pressed red (under say… 60%), they are given a healthy life span of 250 years. But all blue pressers will die.

C) If more than 60% red, then everyone gets a healthy life for 60 more years. No one dies.

Thats the prisoner dilemma. The whole
world is better off if everyone chooses blue. But the problem is that some might be tempted by the red reward, and not care about hurting the blues. They still come out with something if everyone presses red, but just not as good as it could have been if everyone had made the moral choice to press blue.

The only way to guarantee you survive is to press red, but you might end up with less. If you trust the world, and everyone trusted each other to choose blue, then everyone would come out with a long healthy life. The issue is… you die if anyone betrays the group. That’s the problem. It makes a lot of people betray the group and choose red, because even though you could end up with less, you will still at least live 60 years. if you press blue for the best group outcome, you could end up dead.

There is the moral dilemma that the OP doesn’t have.

This sounds like something from a Saw film.

I have too much faith in humanity. I would have said blue because I couldn't be part of the reason others died, I wouldn't want to be here without my loved ones and I thought most people were good people who would think the same. The comments though 😯

Those who deserve to survive will press the red button. It is the only logical and sensible choice.

You would have to be a complete fool to put your life in other people's hands.

At it's base level. Press the red button and you will definitely live. Those who also want to live will press the red button. Press the blue button and you will almost certainly die, for being stupid, not noble.

Why can't we all agree to pick blue instead?

I saw this explained in another way, see if this makes you feel any different about the choice.

Imagine a giant blender, you have the choice to get in it or not. If enough people get in, it doesn’t get switched on and everyone survives. If not enough people get in, those in the blender will die. Would you climb in the blender? (disclaimer you cannot see who is in the blender.)

Surely it makes more sense for everyone to press red?

But then there's the wider impact that, yes you are right, everyone has that choice, but because of the language that was used it forced people to choise a different option. Great example of the power of words! If you phrased it as 'want to live? Press red. Not sure if you want to live? Press blue' you'd get different results!