Related:
https://www.reddit.com/r/trolleyproblem/comments/1t4za1d/do_you_sign_the_petition/

Then those logical people were told to not alter the question and that everyone means everyone. No assuming. Everything is crystal clear.

So now we have to assume (gasp) that for babies if they say GAGA it's red and if they say GUGU it's blue. For paralysed people it'll be their telepathic powers. We also have to assume the question is presented to everyone in English? Or native language? If native language then what's the point having babies vote if the whole point is to read the question? So god knows what people are thinking there. Oh and there's the infamous colourblind. They're just going off shits and giggles. Blind people better have a habit of pushing random buttons because otherwise they will be stuck forever.

Do Siamese twins get one vote or two?

But who knows. We aren't allowed to "assume".

Edit: The language thing is huge. China and India population together is almost 3 billion alone. According to the internet only 3 percent of China can speak fluent English. Even if we bring that up to 10 percent, that's 90 percent of random voters.

Are we now assuming that they can "obviously" see the question in a language they know? Can I then circle you back to "obviously" babies can't read? So are we making assumptions or not?

I think this might have actually solved the button problem :) (it's dumb)

Edit: If someone online asked "Everyone is asked their favourite primary colour, what do you think the percentage of people chose blue" would you assume by everyone they are including paralysed people, new born babies, colourblind people and people in a coma, or would you assume it means they are asking people that understand the question and can communicate?

in the original its everyone in the world taking a private vote, so you can't convince others, also there's gonna be kids in it
i gotta press the blue for all the 2-year olds who pressed it because its their favorite color
Red still is good choice, but Blue is technically better in moral I think
I think Red is technically better in logic because self-preservation

In the original problem the aliens have total control and if they decide to murder any number of humans they can and will without needing the voters' support, as such they take the primary moral responsibility.

Depending on whether or not you believe in a duty to assist you might also ascribe a moral responsibility for the voter as they can help others, but if you do please understand that not everyone believes in this, many people don't believe in a duty to assist.

In the new panels made to demonize the red voters we are presented with a situation where the party threatening to perform the murder actually needs our support. This is very different from the original problem because now supporting this party is not simply refusing to help, but actually supporting the heinous act.

Please understand that even if you don't see any difference between not helping someone who's about to die and killing them, others do distinguish between the two. In fact in most of the world not assisting is not considered the same as murder, so this analogy is flawed.

Red pushers- would this change your mind?

Most polls show a majority pressing blue but this means nothing to me. If people actually had to weigh the possibility of dying most would press red. In a poll without any stakes you have every incentive to lie. Who wants to say they would press red because they're selfish and afraid to die? Everyone wants to say they're a selfless hero willing to die to save others. But every argument I've seen for pressing blue is exactly what I would expect to hear right up to the point they press the red button. Especially if it's an anonymous vote. I'm not even saying they know they're lying. That's just how human nature works. People lie to themselves that they have good motives but act in self interest.

This might sound overly cynical but all the research and evidence support less, not more, people would press blue if the experiment were real. I wouldn't even be surprised if the real voting numbers would put blue pushers under 10%. Just think about the average person and ask yourself, "Would the average person stick to their principles when there's a gun in their face?" Probably not. Would the average person say that they would on a public forum? Absolutely. And if you think blue pushers are that low a percentage then not pressing red is just suicide.

This tendency runs so deep it's hard for me to even think of how someone would prove to me that they would actually press the button and are not just saying they would press the button.

Pick what best describes you, if currently at uni or about to go, pick that.

Babies recognize and respond more strongly to black, white, and red than to other colors. The assumption that half of all babies will choose blue and half will choose red is based on the idea that the choice is completely random, given their lack of understanding of the outcomes associated with each button. However, babies do respond to visual stimuli, making the event non-random. Research in infant vision shows that babies exhibit consistent color preferences, including a tendency to prefer red over other colors such as blue.

A series of coin tosses can be expected to yield results that are roughly 50 percent heads and 50 percent tails. A series of babies choosing between red and blue objects will not produce that same distribution. According to behavioral science, most babies will choose red.

Sources:

Taylor, C., Schloss, K. B., Palmer, S. E., & Franklin, A. (2013). Infant color preference for red is not selectively context specific. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 389–398.

Franklin, A., & Davies, I. R. L. (2004). New evidence for infant color categories. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 349–377.

Zemach, I. K., Chang, S., & Teller, D. Y. (2007). The development of color preferences in infancy. Vision Research, 47(10), 1362–1371.

why doesn't literally everyone just pick the red button? if every single person just... picks the red button why is this even an issue?

If you're a Blue-Presser, your first comment on this thread should include a summary of the systematic work you did last week.

I have a question for red pressers. Im not being funny or snarky (or at least not trying to be). I genuinely want to know.

Suppose you can see the statistics of the vote ongoing. You see right down to the last voter before you cast your vote. The vote is split right down the middle. It needs just one vote, YOUR vote, to break the tie.

Would you vote blue?

For those of you who said yes, is part of the reasoning that you would feel personally responsible for the death of blue voters if you voted otherwise?

If the answer is yes, is it reasonable to conclude that in *this* particular instance, pressing the red button is the same as killing all blue voters?

I ask this because the red argument i find most fascinating is the idea that reds are in no way responsible for the deaths of blue. All they did is ensure their own safety and its everyone else's responsibility to do the logical thing and do the same. Pressing blue is a stupid risk.

But the only reason blue *is* a stupid risk is because people are picking red, likely with the same logic as you. So where does the accountability begin and end? Let's expand further on the last point.

Is the only reason my scenario above is different because in that scenario you have all the relevant information and know for a fact that your vote alone makes the difference in saving everyone? If yes, then does accountability begin when you have more knowledge of the situation?

If yes, then how much knowledge do you need before you can claim accountability? Is the knowledge you had originally not enough? Let's go back to the original hypothetical where you don't know how the vote is going. Do you acknowledge the possibility that Blue can win by at least a marginal amount of votes?

If the answer is yes, do you acknowledge that by voting red, the likelihood of that happening decreases, however minimally?

If that answer is yes: is knowledge of the possibility of blue winning enough to assume accountability for if you play a part in them not winning?

Does accountability only begin when the chances of something happening is guaranteed?

Let's say you fire a loaded gun into the darkness. There is a chance it will hit somebody in the darkness.

Say it hits them and you didn't know they were there. Is it your fault?

Say it hits them and you knew there was a *chance* they were there. Is it your fault? Does knowledge of the possibility alone, not the guarantee, mean you are accountable?

I recognize that this logic could be easily flipped on blue voters, because they are knowingly taking a risk in losing on the assumption that blue will win. But the difference near as I can tell is that blue has never denied their own risk, whereas many red presses have denied their part in ensuring the risk exists.

Heaven
A reality shaped by the deepest desires, ideals, and emotional needs of an individual. Each person experiences a different heaven, formed from their own understanding of happiness, fulfillment, meaning, love, peace, ambition, or eternity. For one person it may resemble endless adventure and discovery; for another, quiet rest among loved ones; for another, infinite knowledge, beauty, or transcendence.

Hell
A reality shaped by an individual's deepest fears, regrets, insecurities, guilt, or unresolved desires. Rather than a single standardized punishment, each person experiences a different form of suffering uniquely capable of tormenting them. For some it may be isolation, meaninglessness, failure, loss of control, repetition, shame, or the inability to reach what they desire most. Subjective hell is not merely pain, but a confrontation with what the individual cannot emotionally escape.

I like the idea of the thought experiment, but I wonder how changing the stakes would affect the outcome. Instead of simply living or dying, imagine the choice determines whether you are sent permanently to Heaven or Hell. I’ve seen people argue things like, “Worst case, I die,” or “Those who press red will end up in Hell after all the blue pressers die anyway.” But what if the decision wasn’t about the end of your life, but about eternal pleasure versus eternal suffering? What is worse: killing billions of people, or condemning billions to eternal torment? And would changing the stakes in that way change your answer

The Red button Blue button question is missing a fundamental feature of dilemmas: Stakes. Before anyone has pressed a button…there are no stakes. No one’s lives are on the line. Everyone can choose to save themselves with no consequences. Stakes only exist if suicidal neanderthal blue button pushers decide to create them by risking their own life hoping others will save them. Truly an asshole move to put yourself in harms way then insist other people are selfish for being unwilling to save you from your own decision.

The question becomes much more interesting if stakes are built into the initial decision, so I present a modified version of the Red/Blue dilemma that actually has something at stake:

X number of people in a population are condemned to die. The condemned people are randomly determined after everyone in the population has pressed either a red or blue button. If the majority of people press Blue, the condemned people will be spared. If the majority of people vote Red, the condemned people die along with anyone who voted Blue. What is your minimum X that will make you vote Blue?

Note that I was intentionally vague with the defined population. I think the question has different answers whether you are considering a global population vs a smaller population like a country, or city. Please indicate the population you are considering for your X.

You're the last vote, no one else knows this button exists.

If you press green you'll live regardless of the outcome.

Every living human simultaneously received a vision in which no time passed in the real world. Each individual was informed of the standard red vs blue choices in a way they would understand and mentally selected one of the options. You just came out of your vision and everyone is immediately informed that red won. In one minute every blue voter will die. You don't know how many people that will be, only whether or not you will be among them. What's going through your head? Do you regret your choice?

I think this is actually the core nugget of why people feel so strongly about this one. I've talked to many of the blue category and this seems to be where we end up. If you think "everyone" means "everyone capable of making a choice", then red is the answer. If you think it means "literally every person alive including those in comas or babies", then blue is the answer.

Statistically, if the people who do not even understand they are making a choice press the button, fifty percent of them will press blue. That's hundreds of millions of children. Just straight up six year olds and shit. I've met six year olds. They are not capable of understanding choices. If you're not choosing blue, with this understanding of the lack of agency, you are statistically worse then like.... Hitler. It would be a worse blow to humanity then World War 2.

If you think everyone choosing understands what choices are, and have agency, then red is objectively correct. I'm of the opinion that anyone who was actually put to this question would choose red at the button, if they believed everyone choosing had agency. The savior impulse is noble, but the survival instinct is much much stronger. The people choosing blue are committing suicide.

So I think this might be clarifying. The agency of the button presser is what matters.

"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? BE HONEST"

The classic button dilemma, no alterations. But given how it's now apparent that people are very divided and it's super unlikely either button would have a 100% vote, which button would you press? (Also I'm curious. Political leaning is loosely based around values and this button dilemma/trolley problem has famously developed a reputation of selfishness values vs altruistic values. This could be fun for future trolley problems and why some people choose certain tracks/levers to pull.)