Red Button or Blue Button?

[Jarsa]

Tim Urban posted this thought experiment:

"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?"

[brewerb]

Do I know that consequence of pressing either button?

Can I decline/abstain?

Do the blind get a free pass? The color blind? The mentally ill?

[Rizen]

There's a word for this kind of scenario but I can't think of it.

[Dānu]

[Fireball]

I'd press both buttons at the same time, just to watch the universe implode. Follow me for more great tips on universe destruction!

[Rizen]

Prisoner's dilemma, that's it!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cq5cGcQHZIQ

[epronovost]

Tim Urban posted this thought experiment:

"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?"

That seems pretty easy. I would press the blue button and I don't see why anybody would press the red one. Did I miss something?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lots of agenda tucked in there.

[Dānu]

Tim Urban posted this thought experiment:

"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?"

That seems pretty easy. I would press the blue button and I don't see why anybody would press the red one. Did I miss something?

If you press the red button, your survival is guaranteed.

[Vorpal]

Pressing the red button makes the most sense assuming you believe everyone will press the red button. No one would die!

But, some people will press the blue button. They will for all kinds of reasons.

So, maybe mention exactly what I have said and petition for everyone to press the blue button.

[SYZ]

That seems pretty easy. I would press the blue button and I don't see why anybody would press the red one. Did I miss something?

If you press the red button, your survival is guaranteed.

Exactly. The red button it is.   

[epronovost]

That seems pretty easy. I would press the blue button and I don't see why anybody would press the red one. Did I miss something?

If you press the red button, your survival is guaranteed.

Why would anybody press the red button if it entails the chance of killing random people? What's the benefit in that? Why would you risk killing other people? Are there really a lot of people who are convinced than more than half of humanity would be fine with risking killing potentially millions of people for no benefits? This sounds very odd to me. Sure I expect that in such a scenario some people would press red be they sociopaths, paranoid narcissist or little children who don't or can't reason properly about the consequences of their action and pick red, but I can't see why this number would exceed 4 billion clic. Pressing red, on the other hand, guaranty you will kill at least some people and the sort of people we actually might want to save the most like little children who don't understand the problem fully or devoted self sacrificial people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Well, it's not anyone we know, Mom."

Pushes button. Mom drops dead.

[Dānu]

If you press the red button, your survival is guaranteed.

Why would anybody press the red button if it entails the chance of killing random people? What's the benefit in that? Why would you risk killing other people? Are there really a lot of people who are convinced than more than half of humanity would be fine with risking killing potentially millions of people for no benefits? This sounds very odd to me. Sure I expect that in such a scenario some people would press red be they sociopaths, paranoid narcissist or little children who don't or can't reason properly about the consequences of their action and pick red, but I can't see why this number would exceed 4 billion clic. Pressing red, on the other hand, guaranty you will kill at least some people and the sort of people we actually might want to save the most like little children who don't understand the problem fully or devoted self sacrificial people.

Everybody dies whether or not you push the button.

[epronovost]

Why would anybody press the red button if it entails the chance of killing random people? What's the benefit in that? Why would you risk killing other people? Are there really a lot of people who are convinced than more than half of humanity would be fine with risking killing potentially millions of people for no benefits? This sounds very odd to me. Sure I expect that in such a scenario some people would press red be they sociopaths, paranoid narcissist or little children who don't or can't reason properly about the consequences of their action and pick red, but I can't see why this number would exceed 4 billion clic. Pressing red, on the other hand, guaranty you will kill at least some people and the sort of people we actually might want to save the most like little children who don't understand the problem fully or devoted self sacrificial people.

Everybody dies whether or not you push the button.

Wait, that doesn't seem to be the case in the OP. Did I miss something?

[Rizen]

That seems pretty easy. I would press the blue button and I don't see why anybody would press the red one. Did I miss something?

If you press the red button, your survival is guaranteed.

Yeah, this is kind of a crappy prisoner's dilemma. If everybody pushes the red button, everybody survives. If you push the red button you're guaranteed to survive. The only risk is pressing the blue button.

[Unsapien]

Let's keep in mind that this is just a thought experiment, I'm pretty sure would none here would actually press a button that would cause the death of actual people.

Just like the train experiment, about choosing which track to choose to kill the least number of people, if it was a real situation, I'd be trying to stop the train or derail the train by damaging the track, or the switch.

[Minimalist]

Tim Urban posted this thought experiment:

"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?"

That seems pretty easy. I would press the blue button and I don't see why anybody would press the red one. Did I miss something?

Overpopulation?

[Unsapien]

"Well, it's not anyone we know, Mom."

Pushes button. Mom drops dead.

Reminds me the 1986 Twilight Zone episode "Button, Button"

The episode, focuses on a couple who receive a box with a button that, when pressed, grants $200,000, but kills a stranger. The twist is that the box is then passed on to someone they do not know.

[Dānu]

Everybody dies whether or not you push the button.

Wait, that doesn't seem to be the case in the OP. Did I miss something?

[GenesisNemesis]

It's not my responsibility to determine the fate of the human race, so everyone gets to survive. You can all thank me now (for being one of the people who doesn't choose to kill a lot of people).

[Paleophyte]

Green button.

Here's how this works. It's a thought experiment that's designed to be divisive. We all agree that 49.99% pressing blue is not where we want to be. That's maximum casualties. Now you have two paths to get away from that and they're mutually exclusive. The problem makes you invest yourself in the answer, and that makes people defensive.

If you answered blue button, then you're an idiot for not choosing the safe option.
If you answered red button, then you're a heartless murderer for not choosing the option that's guaranteed to save everybody.

It isn't about logic. It's about making people emotionally invested in their replies. It's about deliberately circumventing your reason.

So just add a green button to this failed two-button system.

[epronovost]

Green button.

Here's how this works. It's a thought experiment that's designed to be divisive. We all agree that 49.99% pressing blue is not where we want to be. That's maximum casualties. Now you have two paths to get away from that and they're mutually exclusive. The problem makes you invest yourself in the answer, and that makes people defensive.

If you answered blue button, then you're an idiot for not choosing the safe option.
If you answered red button, then you're a heartless murderer for not choosing the option that's guaranteed to save everybody.

It isn't about logic. It's about making people emotionally invested in their replies. It's about deliberately circumventing your reason.

So just add a green button to this failed two-button system.

I would disagree with the assesment of the usefulness of this type of thought experiment. The goal is precisely to get people invested in their answer and then discuss their moral reasoning. By replying "green button", you are simply not engaging in the exercise which is perfectly fine if you don't want to, but let's not call "not participating" wiser in any capacity just like "not reading a book" or "not solving a puzzle" doesn't make you any wiser. The entire problem is about normative ethics and how, on instinct, someone assesses a moral conundrum. It's thus entirely about both values and logic. For the problem to have any value, you have to entertain it's constrains. It's no different than the numerous declination of the "trolley problem" or the more grim and historically accurate "starving on raftboat" scenarios.

[Rizen]

Green button.

Here's how this works. It's a thought experiment that's designed to be divisive. We all agree that 49.99% pressing blue is not where we want to be. That's maximum casualties. Now you have two paths to get away from that and they're mutually exclusive. The problem makes you invest yourself in the answer, and that makes people defensive.

If you answered blue button, then you're an idiot for not choosing the safe option.
If you answered red button, then you're a heartless murderer for not choosing the option that's guaranteed to save everybody.

It isn't about logic. It's about making people emotionally invested in their replies. It's about deliberately circumventing your reason.

So just add a green button to this failed two-button system.

This really isn't the case though. The blue button isn't guaranteed to save everybody; it's the only button that presents risks. If everybody presses the red button everybody lives. You're not choosing to kill anybody by pressing the red button. It's just a personal choice of if you want to guarantee you live or if you want to risk not. Everybody has the option to be completely safe. It's their fault if they die by pressing the blue button.

[Paleophyte]

Green button.

Here's how this works. It's a thought experiment that's designed to be divisive. We all agree that 49.99% pressing blue is not where we want to be. That's maximum casualties. Now you have two paths to get away from that and they're mutually exclusive. The problem makes you invest yourself in the answer, and that makes people defensive.

If you answered blue button, then you're an idiot for not choosing the safe option.
If you answered red button, then you're a heartless murderer for not choosing the option that's guaranteed to save everybody.

It isn't about logic. It's about making people emotionally invested in their replies. It's about deliberately circumventing your reason.

So just add a green button to this failed two-button system.

I would disagree with the assesment of the usefulness of this type of thought experiment. The goal is precisely to get people invested in their answer and then discuss their moral reasoning. By replying "green button", you are simply not engaging in the exercise which is perfectly fine if you don't want to, but let's not call "not participating" wiser in any capacity just like "not reading a book" or "not solving a puzzle" doesn't make you any wiser. The entire problem is about normative ethics and how, on instinct, someone assesses a moral conundrum. It's thus entirely about both values and logic. For the problem to have any value, you have to entertain it's constrains. It's no different than the numerous declination of the "trolley problem" or the more grim and historically accurate "starving on raftboat" scenarios.

I'm choosing not to press red or blue. I would think that these responses might indicate that I am participating.

By making your participants emotionally invested you make it more difficult to then discuss the possibilities. You have to talk them down off the ledge first. Granted, there are certain types of problems that's effective for. Now go on the internet and tell me how much of that reasoned dialogue you see this generating. It's a lot of shrieky memes.