There are so many great and inspiring responses in this thread. This kind of encapsulates them succinctly.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I know and love many people (children, the logic-challenged, and just general do-gooders) who would be incapable of pushing the red button even if the logic was explained to them. I’m not going to condemn them to death. So by extension, I can’t push the red button either. Those arguing that all we need to do is all push red for all of us to survive are deluding themselves that people they care about will not die due to their decision.
They are also ignoring that it’s a given that humans will never unanimously pick anything. A plan that starts with the premise that everyone has to agree to do the same thing is doomed from the start.
This is indeed a sobering thought you have brought up.
However…you’re implicitly blaming the red-button pushers for the deaths of the blue-button pushers, but I would instead put the blame on whoever set up this rigged game.
And by pushing the blue button, you are undoubtedly acting altruistically and out of concern for others, but the most likely end result will be your sacrifice and death. And by pushing the red button, you are acting out of self-interest (and possibly selfishness), but you are not directing hurting anyone else…just making a choice to ensure your continued existence.
I’ll try to make an analogy: simply by living on this planet I use up resources (food, housing, clothing, etc.) and produce waste (including climate-damaging excess carbon dioxide). I’m sure I have worn clothing produced in sweatshops overseas. I’m not intentionally hurting others, but just my existence on this overcrowded planet necessarily has that effect.
I could make life better for someone else less fortunate than myself (perhaps a homeless person) by giving them my house and possessions and sacrificing myself. But my own self-interest prevents me from doing that.
It’s supposed to drop below freezing tonight. Am I condemning a homeless person to death tonight by not giving them my warm house?
So whether you realize it or not, we are all pushing the red button every day—unless we are literally sacrificing ourselves for others.
The button dilemma just makes this more explicit.
So then what do you recommend to your loved ones? Are you going to press blue but recommend that your loved ones press red?
This dilemma is actually more interesting than it seems at first. It’s quite a subtle take on the prisoner dilemma (with some aspects of the trolley problem thrown in)
But it’s not as simple as all or nothing. The outcome of 90% pressing red is still better for everyone than 49.9% pressing blue (just much worse for everyone than 50.1% pressing blue)
I see no allowance in this experiment for negotiations, let alone recommendations, with or to others.
THIS is the best answer so far. The most rational answer is to pick red. It guarantees your safety and, assuming people are being rational, guarantees their safety as well. People saying they would pick blue because they don’t want to be responsible for other’s deaths are missing the point. There WON’T be any deaths (or rather their shouldn’t be) if everyone realizes this.
Essentially, there are two ways to guarantee no deaths. 1) Majority pick blue, or 2) everyone picks red. If you pick blue, you run the risk of dying. If you pick red, you guarantee your safety while ALSO allowing for everyone surviving if they pick red also. There is thus no reason to pick blue. The same outcome can be achieved by picking red without the possibility of yourself dying.
It’s not specified in the OP. You could have 10 seconds to make your choice, you could have a year.
That’s the delusion I was talking about. “Everyone” is NOT going to pick red.
I have no doubt that you are correct. But knowing human nature, the majority will.
And I don’t necessarily mean this pejoratively. It is ingrained in all most of us to take care of ourselves before others. The whole “put your oxygen mask on before worrying about the person next to you.”
Now people are also capable of self-sacrifice if their potential death can save a loved one or close friend. Some people might even risk their life for a stranger. But a self-sacrifice that is virtually certain to result in one’s death, and virtually certain to not affect the outcome? No way. People simply do not sacrifice their lives to help the amorphous “greater good.” And while there may certainly be exceptions, I don’t believe it extends to >50% of the population.
If it was really ingrained, they wouldn’t have to make that announcement at the beginning of the flight. Instead, the safety professionals know (or at least strongly suspect) that many parents will fumble with their child’s mask before donning their own and both will end up succumbing to hypoxia.
Your logic is sound, and your premise—i.e., not enough altruists—isn’t crazy. But it is as speculative as my premise, that most people will not choose in a manner that, if that choice prevails, will kill people. So, per my values, one choice is moral and one is not.
if I’m wrong, I die having chosen not to place others at risk. I’m okay with that.
A person’s child is a special case. We are also very ingrained (in an evolutionary biology sense) to protect our children even at the risk of our own lives. That’s why they make that announcement.
The analogy works better if it is a stranger next to you who needs help. Most people wouldn’t need to be told to put their own mask on first in that type of situation. (But it’s because a lot of parents travel with their children that they need to.)
My hat is off to you (seriously, no sarcasm intended). But in the situation as presented, I fear your sacrifice will be in vain.
Were I to find myself in that situation, and were I to choose to press the red button, I would likely struggle with survivor’s guilt—but I would try to allay this with the thought that I didn’t set up the situation in the first place, and I would also make every effort to not play the game if at all possible.
(One could make that explicit in the original scenario by adding a condition in which anyone who does not press a button is guaranteed to die.)
What a horrible situation to be put in, though! It reminds me of Squid Game, which was very upsetting and gave me nightmares.
Yes. You know that some people will vote the other way, no matter what.
But the blue button works if a bare majority chooses life for all, over death for the altruistic.
While i agree that we should blame whoever set this up, you are absolutely directly hurting others if you choose red. You are increasing the odds they are killed.
I am less pessimistic about human nature than you. Also, i care more about the quality of my life than its quantity. I would prefer to die then to be guilty of killing a large chunk of humanity.
Suppose we take the element of someone or something deliberately setting up and imposing death out of the scenario and make it more automatic and impersonal? Something like the following:
There’s a popular beach in Australia that due to the risk of shark attack has a netted-off area that’s safe to swim in, while everyone is advised that there’s near-certain chance of shark attack outside the safe area. There is one caveat however: For some reason the local sharks are afraid of and won’t attack a large enough group of swimmers.
So if everyone stayed inside the netted red area, they’d be safe; and if a large enough percentage of swimmers swam in the unnetted blue area, they’d also be safe. Let’s even say that the red area is the less desirable (but more easily protected) section of the water, and it would be a good thing if people could safely swim in the blue area. The question then becomes, do you morally owe it to the people who choose to swim in the unnetted blue area to join them in order to attempt to make them safe? Is it morally incumbent upon you to “get with the program”– even if you may only be volunteering to die in vain?
This almost gets into the Randian question, famously expounded in the chapter of Atlas Shrugged about the fate of the Twentieth Century Motor Company, of how much we owe anonymous strangers who have no moral claim on us other than being born as human creatures. At what point a millionth-of-one-percent contribution at non-negligible personal cost becomes not worth it. The thing is, individuals by definition can only make a moral choice on their own behalf. If some collectivizing authority, like say a government that enforces impartial laws is in operation, then the moral choice becomes whether to obey or rebel against that authority. And we all make that decision continually. Some people, probably only a minority, feel no moral opprobrium about cheating on their taxes; on the other hand virtually no one scrupulously obeys speed limits solely because it “sets a good example”. It’s an interesting question of what issue produces an approximately median split.
Except that no one has to swim at all. 
And in the OP as originally presented, nobody has to press a button at all. They are just expected to.
My first choice would be not press a button at all.
(But of course, “not pressing a button” or “not swimming” is fighting the hypothetical.)
Hmm. Do the people who don’t or a button live? In that case i don’t press any buttons