AIBU to wonder which button people would press to survive?

[Boxingshibes]

Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button.

If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives.

If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

Red or blue
Red- aibu
Blue-ainbu

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…

Blue.

Obviously.

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.

Wjy wouldn't everyone press red? Then everyone lives

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.

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.

Red

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.

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.

"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!)

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.

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.

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.

I agree that in a real life or death situation no one can predict how they will act. But, that's because humans are not logical. Of course it's strictly logical to vote red. But then, as you are about to press it, you realise you never asked your child how they'd vote. You know your mum has strong principles and you can't be sure. Or maybe you hear people laughing outside and it moves you to tears and you think, I just want everyone to live.

This reminds me of one of those survival exercise things I read about years ago which I think was based on the remise of a plague type infection in a hospital. It was judged on minimising number of deaths and impact on society.
The team that won were ruthless, they sealed off the hospital containing the initial infection so staff and visitors at the time of diagnosis were all confined. Most of them died but others outside were saved.
The team who came last and decimated most of society (according to the simulations) by allowing the infection to spread outside of the hospital, claimed they still believed they did the right thing as they observed everybody's human rights so thought they won in moral terms, completely missing the point that the aim was to survive. They are the blue button voters in this scenario, blue is virtue signalling but not practical survival

One would hope a person would think to ask their child how they'd vote!

But yes - pressing blue is illogical, against self-preservation, and utterly foolish, for most people (unless, as I said, they know someone they love will vote blue, and want to try to save them).

It should be a non-question.

A very rough equivalent would be: "Do you want to have to eat a single sweet from a bowl that contains one poisoned sweet, or a bowl with no poisoned sweets? BUT, if you choose 'no poisoned sweets', then everyone who chose 'one poisoned sweet' is guaranteed to eat the poisoned sweet and die."

Why on earth would anyone choose the option that introduces the otherwise non-existent risk that they will die??

Imagine a world where this happens regularly every 5 years. Everyone except very young children participates, people can log their choice in advance (and change it freely and repeatedly until the cut of moment).

Would it end up as a regular no-questions-asked euthanasia event? Would people suggest to vote blue in attempt to save everyone who would had been trying to use it as one?

Years ago (at least 20 years if not more) there was a TV programme that had this premise.

I only remember one that was were a plane had been hijacked and was going to be flown to crash into a high population area, (weird forshadowing of 9/11). And the team who was deciding what to do failed.

They had the options of

Shoot the plane down
Try to get one of the passengers to negotiate
Try to get the hijackers to crash the plane somewhere else.

Iirc, they chose B and then C. Turns out that official military advice (this was based on UK military) was to shoot the plane down. Yes 300 people will die but several thousand wouldnt. So on balance it was the best decision.

But choosing red unnecessarily introduces the risk of death!

If most people choose blue then there is no risk of death. Nobody dies. Choosing red introduces death! It seems completely illogical to me for anyone to choose red, although I understand that some people will. Even though I made a chart, and see that red has no risk of death to the red-button-presser personally, it still feels like the illogical choice because it introduces a risk of death, which blue does not.

I can see there is a reason to choose red but I still think blue makes the most sense for most people to choose because if you choose blue, nobody dies, which is the best outcome.

It's not the same as putting your own oxygen mask on first, because if you don't do that, both you die and your child dies because you pass out before you can help them. If you push red and your child pushes blue then you couldn't have helped them anyway. I suppose it's more like - connecting your oxygen mask's supply to a pipe which would deliver oxygen to the whole plane at once and negate the need for masks, but which will only work if more than half the people decide to do this, otherwise there won't be enough oxygen in that system so only the people wearing masks would survive. In this scenario there is enough oxygen to support everyone wearing a mask.

Hmm. In that scenario I would probably wear the oxygen mask, rather than donate it, unless I could see that the majority were agreeable to the pipe connection plan in which case I would join it. Which probably tells me there's something wrong with the way I'm processing the button question.

Yes but my point is the clever ones realise and press red, the selfish ones dont realise but press red to save themselves, then the foolish people like me who are trying to save everyone end up dead.

No, it doesn't. If I press red, then I will always live. If I press blue, then I might die.

If you press red, you are ensuring that you live, and there is no risk of death. If you press blue, you are both introducing a risk of death, and putting your life in other people's hands (and as this thread shows, you can't trust people to think clearly, or to think of others' well-being over their own).

To press blue is literally to say: "I could've pressed red and guaranteed my survival, but for some reason I've decided it would be more fun to introduce the previously non-existent possibility of dying, based on what my fellow humans vote for!"

I think my poisoned sweet analogy further down is probably a better comparison for the whole situation than the oxygen mask, which is really just about the fact that you are not morally responsible if someone else chooses to panic and throw their oxygen mask away (aka, you are not morally responsible for people's deaths if you press red, and they press blue).

For those voting red, lets assume we cannot speak to family members like small children about this before they vote? Would you still be happy with your choice?

I don't have small children - mine are teenagers. But I feel pretty certain that even when very young, they would've pressed red as the sensible choice. Obviously though, my comfort with pressing red is based on the fact that I know everyone I care about most would press red, and therefore I have nothing to lose by pressing red. It's a win/win situation.

But as I've said, I think the only rational reason to press blue, is if one knows that a person one cares about will press blue, and one wants to try to save them.

I think the better question is what would you tell your kids to press?
Would anyone seriously tell their children to press blue?

I don't understand the poisoned sweet analogy at all. If I'm choosing blue then it's not like I'm choosing a bowl with one poisoned sweet. I'm choosing a bowl with no poisoned sweets for anyone, although I might be wrong meaning some of the sweets could end up poisoned anyway. (Which I suppose is the point of the one poisoned sweet, but that doesn't feel intuitively right.)

Red means choosing a bowl with magic sweets where red sweets are safe and blue sweets are poisoned.

The oxygen mask analogy where people throw their masks away through panic also bears no resemblance to a scenario where you're making a choice. But my analogy with choosing to either wear the mask (red button) or not wear the mask but divert the oxygen so it fills the cabin (blue button) although this might not be enough (and the mask-wearers would be fine regardless) does make more sense to me, and makes me want to pick red, and feel that it is obviously logical for everyone to pick red.

I think because in (my) oxygen mask scenario, I see it more like the danger of death is external, it's not related to my choice, it's happening anyway and I have two possible ways to prevent it, but one of them is entirely under my control and therefore more certain, the other depends on the cooperation and communal action of more than half of the people on the plane, and I don't know if I would trust that and it seems crazy to do so.

In the sweet bowl scenario it feels like choosing blue is choosing a safe bowl for everyone, and choosing red means that poison would be introduced whereas it wouldn't if most people don't choose that option. It's not that I would feel responsible for poisoning people, it's just that I don't want that to happen to anyone including me, so it feels safer to go for the option with no poison.