Choosing red is choosing to survive knowing that there will always be people who choose blue, potentially an amount that would mean you don't survive if you didn't take explicit action against it.

The people who chose blue in no way contributed to the peril you are in, thus you aren't justified in killing them in self defense.

They didn't cause the peril, but knowing that their choice is possibility, if I don't make a decision to protect myself now their decisions may then be the cause of my continued not-survival.

I fail to see how anyone could choose blue, the certain scenario is everyone chooses red, and this whole post is a nothingburger.

> I fail to see how anyone could choose blue

Depends on the scenario… or the number of people in the experiment. A sufficiently large number of people will guarantee votes in both bins. The specific scenario (reading this outside of a vacuum) will also have knock-on effects.

Eg: reading this into the current political landscape in the US vs reading this into another toy problem about jumping off a cliff or not will have very different outcomes and ethics.

The article makes a good point with their reframing.

"Give everyone a magic gun. They may choose to shoot themselves in the head. If more than 50% of people choose to shoot themselves, all the guns jam. The person also has the option to put the gun down and not shoot it."

The "dilemma" is asking to what lengths we should go to save people choosing to commit suicide, and does that change when they are unintentionally choosing suicide due to being "tricked" into it.

I guess that just underlines how reframing can really muddy or clarify a problem. The original problem can be mapped onto many varied scenarios with wildly different ethics.

To me, the whole point of the riddle is that it reveals the most internal bias towards either yourself or others, meaning that you do things for society or for yourself. Blues don't understand reds, reds don't understand blues. The bias is invisible to the self but it is clearly there given the huge contrast in the opinions of people.

Practically at least one person will choose blue for lulz or curiosity or as a moral compass. Shall we punish them? How does it affect survival of whole population in a long term?

You fail to see how anyone could choose blue, even though there are plenty of people on the internet and even in the comments here who are stating they would choose blue?

The blues sound like idiots.

Press the red button you survive, or press the blue button you might die

Press red and you might kill.

Only the people who have chosen through their own free will to gamble with their lives - it's their choice.

Driving on a road while fully abiding road rules might kill people who aren't doing that (e.g. pedestrians walking across the highway).

> Choosing red is choosing to kill them.

Choosing red is choosing to most likely kill yourself.

I meant:

Choosing blue is choosing to most likely kill yourself.