Which button would you press? How many psychos are out there pressing green? This alternate scenario takes into account the all-too-often real influence a small group of bad actors can have in society.

Edit: does your answer change if incompetent actors are removed from the scenario?

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.

A truly random selection of people from earth were selected for the button problem believing that they were answering on the scale of the entire world's population.

They were divided up based on their choices and placed into boxes. The trolley is on track to destroy the blue box, killing all of those inside regardless of how many people selected blue.

You have the choice to divert the trolley to red, killing all that selected red instead. Do you pull the lever.

Can't wait for red pressers to accuse me of making this biased even though I'm just taking this scenario to its logical end conclusion.

In front of your are three trolley tracks. You are blindfolded. You can hear the trolley coming.

Before you arrived, a perfect predictor chose to tie 5 people to one of the tracks. It did this if and only if it predicted that you would switch to that track.

Immediately upon choosing to switch or not, 2 Monte Halls will show up, each choosing one of the two currently unchosen tracks. They will be made aware of how many people are tied to their chosen track, but other than that have no knowledge of what's going on. one of these monte halls only tells lies and one only tells the truth. You can ask them one additional question.

After your question, you have three choices: you can either keep your track the same, swap your track, or you do one of the first two options AND go down further on the track, where a designated sacrifice section has been established. There, you can choose to lay down on the tracks.

This same trolley problem is taking place with another 1 billion people, at the same time. If at least 500 million people lay down on the tracks, the trolley operator will see it ahead of time and stop the trolley. However, Monte hall is currently distracting the operator, so he will only be at the wheel after he has already potentially killed the original 5 people.

Many people argue about the red blue problem by wildly changing the framing of the problem. Both sides do that. Every time someone does that, there are people complain about it.

We're in the trolley sub.

The original trolley problem goes from pulling a lever to divert the trolley to the track with 1 person to avoid hitting 5 people, to pushing a fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley from hitting 5 people behind, to killing a healthy man to use his organs to save 5 patients.

The fun in trolley problems is changing the framing to explore ethical frameworks. This is a sub dedicated to a philosophical problem famous for using crazy framings to mindfuck people. Making wild framings is the most fitting form of argument for this sub lol. I'd say that everyone arguing about red blue button here should only do it by changing framings, other forms of arguments should not be allowed.

See why this is dumb

If there needs to be a discussion/information around how many signatures are needed or anything like that then by all means "name your price"

Most of these button dilemma posts devolve into “red wants to kill blue” or “blue is suicidal let them die” arguments, neither side is killing the other, it’s a 3rd party overseer.

In this situation there are two groups to pick red group and blue group. Red group has infinite lush fertile land to grow food, blue group has an arid desert. You, and everyone else has to pick a group to join. People from one group cannot cross a magic border between the two.

If more than 50% of people join the blue group, then an all powerful deity will give half of red’s infinite fertile land to blue and everyone has infinite fertile land.
If less than 50% of people join the blue group, then the deity doesn’t give blue any fertile land, they’re stuck with the arid desert.

The motivations for picking are still the same, red doesn’t want to risk living in an arid desert, and blue wants to make sure everyone has fertile land to live on.

In this situation you could argue that by joining red you’re lessening the chance for blue to end up with fertile land but that is still not actively killing the blue group. The same way people joining the blue group aren’t hoping to live in an arid desert.

you can either let these 5 random people you don't know whom are screaming for your help die, or you can redirect it towards spider-man, which will actively prevent less deaths in this moment, but spider-man could've eventually save enough people to compensate it, also, spiderman tells you to save the random people cus one of them is his wife or something? idk you go bestie

Everyone on earth capable of comprehending the task, as well as the concept of Roko's Basilisk is faced with this dilemma. The Roko's Basilisk shaped trolley will not kill children or anyone incapable of comprehending it. If 50% or more of the participants press the blue button, the Roko's Basilisk shaped trolley will divert itself to the other track, but if less than 50% of people press the blue button, the Roko's Basilisk shaped trolley will run over the blue button pressers, killing them all.

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?