Anyway, if you haven't heard this debate comes from a moral dilemma stating:

Everyone in the world has to take 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?

First just to point out, if you think about actual moral dilemma's we're all familiar with, like the trolley problem, it's kinda bad? It's just convoluted wording, if you really examine that it's just not how people write things. However it kinda strengthens it somehow, different ways of describing the exact same thing, even if 100% honest, do impact how people perceive them.

Second, a thing that really annoyed me was people just going so beyond the actual question it becomes silly. No, “everybody” doesn't mean babies and blind people and severely disabled people etc. This is because no moral dilemma works that way unless stated, not the other way around. And more logically it's kinda all or nothing, what the hell are you gonna do with a baby literally just born? Like, a second ago, are they gonna vote? Is everybody just gonna wait until those very much not able to move their limbs somehow press it? What about people mostly/completely paralyzed? Hell “everybody” might include plants and animals, are we impacting or waiting on them? I'm not saying you couldn't ask that kind of question too I guess, this confusion is at the fault of the wording ultimately, but in any scenario treating everybody literally we all die waiting in our voting rooms or, if we get out of them when we vote and wait there, either live peacefully since the voting will never be done or die in war as people go insane. To conclude, it's the simplest to assume only those of sound mind to understand the question and of able body to put their choice into action are included.

To also think about the actual ramifications on society when it comes to the number of dead, while also silly since it's also not typical for moral dilemma's to go that far, does make it more interesting, so I tried to keep it in mind. It's kinda the same as trying to think of actually organizing a world-wide, complete vote, so it's assumed it's a supernatural teleportation without prep.

Now to actually examine the question, it's best to clearly define what actually happens at the push of either of the buttons.

1. Pressing the blue button: This lumps you in with every other person in the world who pressed the blue button to be killed, unless 51% of the world population also presses it.

2. Pressing the red button: You survive.

This is my main dilemma with.. this dilemma, it's kinda stupid. The blue button is the entire game here, it's pressing it that creates the problem. “Surviving” when it comes to red also just means nothing, it's not a real button. Of course, a lot of people agree on this, however from here the reasons to go blue come down to protecting anyone who may not realize the stupidity of the question that chose blue, and the ethics of, while not directly, still assisting in someone's death, no matter how few people and how little responsibility it might be. All 8 billion people on earth need to choose red for everyone to live, while only 4 billion people need to choose blue for everybody to live.

There are also ways to, as I just did, word the question differently or present different circumstances with the same choices. One would be imagining them as drinks, the blue drink is a deadly poison and the only way to get the antidote is for 4 billion people to also drink it, and the red drink is a soda; another is to imagine it as presidential candidates, if you vote red all those that voted blue will be killed, etc.

The problem with these is the actual main point of the question, the weird wording is important, it's supposed to not seem clear cut and the situation is supposed to catch you completely off guard. All of these better ways to visualize it make it pointless. You're supposed to be scared shitless in a blank dark room with the text and choices in front of you. Yes I'm kinda just making my own little line of when realism is fine, but what's important is the balance between keeping the question interesting since it's stupid and it's dumb so many people(including me) care considering the actual choice when stated more clearly, while keeping it reasonable and not something that sounds like an apocalypse movie. The trolley problem is great to take inspiration from, it's not typically about the actual stress of the situation, but what's logically best, it's about sacrifice and the concept of choices. This is what makes red vs blue a bit more interesting, technically most people already agree red is obvious, but the unknowns of what other people might do and from there the actual conditions removed from being able to communicate and being freaked out, that's where logic isn't there as much.

Now that I feel we've got everything completely conceptualized and the framework I'm working with is clear, I pick red. Obviously I'll never

actually

My reasons are what a lot of people land on, it's all fun and games on the nazi and scrollrot apps just speaking your mind but when push comes to shove you're not gonna trust humanity has your back here. Some people do argue that even if a small percentile of the population picks blue, and more very well might, humanity will grind to a halt as we simply need people to do their jobs for life to go on, we rely on people we don't know exist every day, so it'd be a bit pointless to be alive if your life is turned upside down anyway. Others see blue as a win-win... which I get and might make me go blue. If some good, but not as smart, people go with blue due to it sounding more moral and then die what kind of world is left? Do you personally owe risking your life for someone making a mistake on their own accord? Are you responsible for those deaths or are they for their mistake?

I believe the talk of blame tells me a lot about the person worried about that part of this, the need to save those making a choice under the same conditions as you. While I do believe it's very noble and not selfish as some say, since you're also making other people need to save you, I don't believe you should put yourself in that much danger. It's similar(but not the same) to it being hopeless to try to help someone refusing your help, it's sad to let go but not wrong, self-preservation should not be considered evil here even if it does lead to feeling guilty.

Ultimately, it's important to recognize red is clearly “correct”, as it's choosing not to play, nobody's even in danger until the blue button is pressed. Anyone not seeing this after considering the question more than once needs to read it again and same goes for if you don't get the other side. What makes this interesting is the shock aspect of being presented with the question and what you think any other member of humanity would do in your position. I would act on my worse impulses ultimately, even if I fully understood the red button isn't real a part of me knows the cruelty of this world would affect me and would not rely on its kindness and intelligence for my own survival, just for the chance to save some that chose to play. I don't even know what I'd do if I lost a loved one, or the world ramifications of even 1% of the population dead, but I know I'd feel guilt regardless of it being logically correct. I guess that's why it's interesting, it's just playing on our worldview and reading comprehension and emotions and not more objective reason or logic like the trolley problem would, since there's a lot more than just the choice itself at play.

I hope you weren't expecting world-shattering(or typo-free) writing, I wrote this to maybe stop the loop of talking to myself about it and have probably missed some stuff. I would love to hear different opinions or just what you would do in this situation :) Definitely just send me an email if you're on the same boat as me and need to get it out more concisely and want a convo.