Red Button or 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.

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.

If, and only if, everybody presses the red button does everybody live. You have to achieve 100% red for that outcome. If anybody presses blue, then choosing red is choosing to kill them,

Blue button produces that same result for the entire majority field of 50% plus 1 to 100% blue.

[Rizen]

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.

If, and only if, everybody presses the red button does everybody live. You have to achieve 100% red for that outcome. If anybody presses blue, then choosing red is choosing to kill them,

Blue button produces that same result for the entire majority field of 50% plus 1 to 100% blue.

Literally everybody who presses the red button lives. There's no risk whatsoever in pressing red. Pressing blue and accepting risk is entirely the choice of the person who pressed it. It's not the fault of the people who pressed the red button. There's no reason why everybody who wants to live can't. The only people who die specifically chose that outcome.

[Paleophyte]

If, and only if, everybody presses the red button does everybody live. You have to achieve 100% red for that outcome. If anybody presses blue, then choosing red is choosing to kill them,

Blue button produces that same result for the entire majority field of 50% plus 1 to 100% blue.

Literally everybody who presses the red button lives. There's no risk whatsoever in pressing red. Pressing blue and accepting risk is entirely the choice of the person who pressed it. It's not the fault of the people who pressed the red button. There's no reason why everybody who wants to live can't. The only people who die specifically chose that outcome.

There's no risk to you. That isn't the same as no risk. There's clearly a risk to other people, and the language that you're using shows that you're doing a masterful job of minimizing that.

Allow me to demonstrate something here. It's a bit of moral distancing that you've probably missed. In the scenario as described, your action is simple. Clean. Divorced from consequence. You just press a button and anything that happens... happens. And it happens out of sight and out of mind.

We see this a lot in real world choices. We're the good guys. We don't kill people, we just elect politicians who make some questionable choices, who direct our Department of Defense to send people to kill people. We don't hire crooked CEOs, we have retirement funds and other responsible investments. We don't endorse animal cruelty, we order McNuggets.

It's easy to ignore the consequences when they're divorced from the choice, so let's switch the scenario up a bit and make it more visceral. Tell me how you'd vote in this scenario:

As before, everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. But this time, there are a few differences.

First, your choice will be indelibly printed on your forehead. A colourful dot placed directly between your eyes so that the whole world can forever see your decision.

Second, if more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. But if fewer than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. The people who pressed the blue button will be tied to a post, and the people who pressed the red button will have to shoot them. You will see the person who kills you, or who you kill. Anybody who presses the red button and refuses to kill a blue button presser or otherwise tries to escape the consequences of their choice will have their vote changed from red to blue.

How are you voting now that it isn't a sanitary press of a button?

[SYZ]

To recap for this second page...

"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?"

The risk to you personally if you press the blue button is that
only 49% or less of respondents also choose to do do so.

In which case you're gonna die.  Pressing red is a guaranteed
way to survive regardless of the vote's outcome.

[Reltzik]

My answer to these questions is usually "look for a third option".  I wouldn't necessarily know that a third option is there to be found, but I also wouldn't know if it weren't, and I'd rather gamble on that possibility than take either of the two options presented.

And look, someone posted a third option already.

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

How does that implode the universe?  There's no paradox there.  The way the problem is stated, you help contribute to immunizing everyone by pressing the blue button, while also immunizing yourself when you hit the red button.  "Both" is the objectively right answer.

.... well, objectively right if you're trying to minimize loss of life including your own.  If you're trying to implode the universe, it's objectively wrong.

[SYZ]

My answer to these questions is usually "look for a third option"...

There's no "third option" with this conundrum.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I used to push a button (on either side of my machine gun) a lot when I was a young, and immortal, man.

[epronovost]

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

The scenario says you have to press either one button or the other. You cannot choose to not do anything. Not doing anything is simply avoiding the scenario and not participating in the exercise or the scenario at all. It's the equivalent of remaining immobile and mute when someone asks you if you'd rather have pasta or chicken for diner. You are not engaging with the question nor with the choices that are presented to you.

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.

The internet is a lot of shrieky memes on pretty much every single issue, subect, opinion, etc. It's pretty much it's default setting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, Desert Storm forums were a hoot back then. Every Ricky Recruit and Johnny Dodger thought they could tell us what was what.

[Rizen]

Literally everybody who presses the red button lives. There's no risk whatsoever in pressing red. Pressing blue and accepting risk is entirely the choice of the person who pressed it. It's not the fault of the people who pressed the red button. There's no reason why everybody who wants to live can't. The only people who die specifically chose that outcome.

There's no risk to you. That isn't the same as no risk. There's clearly a risk to other people, and the language that you're using shows that you're doing a masterful job of minimizing that.

Allow me to demonstrate something here. It's a bit of moral distancing that you've probably missed. In the scenario as described, your action is simple. Clean. Divorced from consequence. You just press a button and anything that happens... happens. And it happens out of sight and out of mind.

We see this a lot in real world choices. We're the good guys. We don't kill people, we just elect politicians who make some questionable choices, who direct our Department of Defense to send people to kill people. We don't hire crooked CEOs, we have retirement funds and other responsible investments. We don't endorse animal cruelty, we order McNuggets.

It's easy to ignore the consequences when they're divorced from the choice, so let's switch the scenario up a bit and make it more visceral. Tell me how you'd vote in this scenario:

As before, everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. But this time, there are a few differences.

First, your choice will be indelibly printed on your forehead. A colourful dot placed directly between your eyes so that the whole world can forever see your decision.

Second, if more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. But if fewer than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. The people who pressed the blue button will be tied to a post, and the people who pressed the red button will have to shoot them. You will see the person who kills you, or who you kill. Anybody who presses the red button and refuses to kill a blue button presser or otherwise tries to escape the consequences of their choice will have their vote changed from red to blue.

How are you voting now that it isn't a sanitary press of a button?

You didn't disprove any of my points. You're overthinking it. If you want to live press the red button. It's that simple. Everyone has a 100% chance to live if they want to regardless of what anyone else does and that is an objective fact. If you can't disprove that you have no case. There literally is no risk to pressing the red button. That's why this is such a crappy prisoner's dilemma. In traditional prisoner's dilemmas you're supposed to have to predict what other people do to obtain the best outcome for yourself with risks to either choice but this one takes that element away entirely. It's more of a personal question for every individual of if they want to be guaranteed to live or not. It is entirely the choice of the individual. The people who press the red button are not killing the people who press the blue button because everybody got the individual choice to live if they wanted to and there's nothing anybody else can do to change that.

[epronovost]

Literally everybody who presses the red button lives. There's no risk whatsoever in pressing red. Pressing blue and accepting risk is entirely the choice of the person who pressed it. It's not the fault of the people who pressed the red button. There's no reason why everybody who wants to live can't. The only people who die specifically chose that outcome.

Interesting. You don't consider that by pressing the red button you accept the risk of killing people who pressed the blue button, but you do consider that the people who press the blue button accept the risk of dying. Isn't there a gap between accepting a risk of death and "not wanting to live" though? I chose blue not because I want die or don't care if I live but because I'm convinced that less than 49,9999% of the world population will press red so that the casualties from this event will be null. I arrived at this conclusion via a very simple usage of Game Theory.

The results are fairly simple to assess for there are only three possible outcomes:

1) Everybody lives because 50,0001% or more of the world population presses blue.
2) Everybody lives because 100% of the world population presses red.
3) betweeen 49,9999% and 0,0001% of the population dies and the rest lives because they pressed blue and red buttons respectively.

The best scenario is of course one where everybody lives since in this scenario everybody has something to lose, but nothing to gain. Scenario 1 is much easier to achieve than scenario 2 since it doesn't require a complete and total unanimity within an enormous group of people. When you make a choice with a massive collective impact and under a massive collective conditions, you must remember that not everybody thinks exactly like (most people might, but not everyone). Thus pressing blue is the best choice since it's the most likely one to get you where you want everybody to live.

The only reason I would see for not pressing blue is if you are convinced that most people on the planet will press red to guaranty their personal survival at any possible cost, including the death of potentially billions of others with no certitude that one of your loved one's isn't amongst them. This leads me to think that this little question is a litmus test for interpersonal and societal trust more than an exercise on risk assesment and game theory. If a lot of people in your society say red then you live in a society where most people don't have much if any trust in the good nature of their fellowmen. On the contrary, if a lot people in your society say blue then you live in a high trust society.

Is lack of trust in others the reason you picked red yourself or am I wrong in this assesment?

[Rizen]

Literally everybody who presses the red button lives. There's no risk whatsoever in pressing red. Pressing blue and accepting risk is entirely the choice of the person who pressed it. It's not the fault of the people who pressed the red button. There's no reason why everybody who wants to live can't. The only people who die specifically chose that outcome.

Interesting. You don't consider that by pressing the red button you accept the risk of killing people who pressed the blue button, but you do consider that the people who press the blue button accept the risk of dying. Isn't there a gap between accepting a risk of death and "not wanting to live" though? I chose blue not because I want die or don't care if I live but because I'm convinced that less than 49,9999% of the world population will press red so that the casualties from this event will be null. I arrived at this conclusion via a very simple usage of Game Theory.

The results are fairly simple to assess for there are only three possible outcomes:

1) Everybody lives because 50,0001% or more of the world population presses blue.
2) Everybody lives because 100% of the world population presses red.
3) betweeen 49,9999% and 0,0001% of the population dies and the rest lives because they pressed blue and red buttons respectively.

The best scenario is of course one where everybody lives since in this scenario everybody has something to lose, but nothing to gain. Scenario 1 is much easier to achieve than scenario 2 since it doesn't require a complete and total unanimity within an enormous group of people. When you make a choice with a massive collective impact and under a massive collective conditions, you must remember that not everybody thinks exactly like (most people might, but not everyone). Thus pressing blue is the best choice since it's the most likely one to get you where you want everybody to live.

The only reason I would see for not pressing blue is if you are convinced that most people on the planet will press red to guaranty their personal survival at any possible cost, including the death of potentially billions of others with no certitude that one of your loved one's isn't amongst them. This leads me to think that this little question is a litmus test for interpersonal and societal trust more than an exercise on risk assesment and game theory. If a lot of people in your society say red then you live in a society where most people don't have much if any trust in the good nature of their fellowmen. On the contrary, if a lot people in your society say blue then you live in a high trust society.

Is lack of trust in others the reason you picked red yourself or am I wrong in this assesment?

First of all, you're assuming that everybody wants to live. That's not necessarily the case. Second, you're suggesting that the people who pressed red assume responsibility for the people who pressed blue dying, which I established isn't the case. Me pressing red does not force anyone else to accept risk. If, theoretically, everybody wanted to live there's nothing stopping them from pressing red. Red is not a doom button, it guarantees the safety of every individual who pressed it. Blue does not. This is the key difference in our thought processes. My assessment is simply the logical choice to guarantee the safety of those who want it. Like I said, this is a crappy prisoner's dilemma because there's no reason for anyone to take any risks if they don't want to.

[Dānu]

According to the scenario, in order to live you must press the red button. Why should I assume responsibility for the death of people who, irrationally, invite their own death by pushing blue. They assumed that risk. Who am I to deprive them of their choice and who are you to blame me for the actions of free agents over whom I have no control? You're a caring soul and are letting your emotions steer your judgment along a clearly irrational path. Encouraging irrational behavior will result in far more deaths over the arc of history than letting irrational people wander into their own demise.

[Rizen]

There's nothing uncaring about pressing the red button. I think a lot of people are overlooking the element that not everyone wants to live. 100% life is not the ideal outcome. There are a lot of people who are going through extreme pain due to cancer treatments or dialysis who would rather die than live in that kind of pain. I'm dating someone who's mom decided to stop getting treatments and died and my mom did the same thing when she had metastasized breast cancer. Who are you to force them to live by pressing the blue button?

[epronovost]

First of all, you're assuming that everybody wants to live.

I am indeed assuming that everybody wants to live else they would have already killed themselves (or would kill themselves after pressing the button) and there are no sure ways in this problem to die. You are never guarantied death. At best, you have a risk of death, thus suicidal people cannot press the blue button to die. The personal will to live of others doesn't appear relevent to the problem. 

More importantly, I'm assuming that the majority of the people who read this scenario don't want anybody to die due to a button press be it voluntarily or not.  

Second, you're suggesting that the people who pressed red assume responsibility for the people who pressed blue dying, which I established isn't the case. Me pressing red does not force anyone else to accept risk.

No, but the conditions surrounding red does include the risk of killing the people who press blue should the blue button not be pressed in majority. You are not responsible for who dies specifically. You are indeed not responsible for my personal death in this scenario since I chose blue, but you accept that the people who press blue, whoever they are, might die. In fact, I would state that, considering the fact the scenario states that the whole world is subject to the scenario, that some people will inevitably press blue even though they didn't want to die (like me for example).

What you are in effect chosing is the certainty of survival for the cost of killing others since some will necessarily select blue for whatever reason be it stupidity, idealism, error, etc. or the risk of dying for a reasonnable, but far from absolute, chance of everybody surviving including yourself of course. 

My assessment is simply the logical choice to guarantee the safety of those who want it.

So, if I understand you correctly, you assess this global scenario with global ramification and conditions of operation from a purely individualistic point of view. In this case your game theory is basically the following.

1) I press blue and have a chance to die
2) I press the red button and I have no chance of dying.

Thus, choosing the scenario 2 is clearly the better one.

Like I said, this is a crappy prisoner's dilemma because there's no reason for anyone to take any risks if they don't want to.

What about the risk of losing someone you like who pressed blue and didn't want to die? The scenario states that the entire world population is subject to the scenario and that the final result will be based on the aggregation of billions of individual choices. You are assuming that the lives of those who press blue have such a low worth to those who chose red that they are not even worth considering the risk inherent of choosing blue and that red is foregone conclusion.

It's interesting because at the beginning of the exercise, I arrived at the complete opposite conclusion; that pressing red is not worth much consideration since it puts a cost on something you can have for free at a fairly minimal risk provided you think more than 50% of the world population doesn't want anybody to die due to a maniacal scenario involving button pressing for no other purpose than introducing another risk of death in our lives.

[epronovost]

There's nothing uncaring about pressing the red button. I think a lot of people are overlooking the element that not everyone wants to live. 100% life is not the ideal outcome. There are a lot of people who are going through extreme pain due to cancer treatments or dialysis who would rather die than live in that kind of pain. I'm dating someone who's mom decided to stop getting treatments and died and my mom did the same thing when she had metastasized breast cancer. Who are you to force them to live by pressing the blue button?

How is pressing the blue button preventing them from dying of cancer or suicice or any other cause? The blue button simply guaranty nobody dies within the scenario of the button pressing. It doesn't stop bombs, bullets or disease. It only prevents death by button press in this specific scenario. I don't think the scenario entails that if more than 50% of people press the blue button everybody lives forever and can't die of anything ever. It just gives a chance for everybody to survive the button press if more than 50% of people press blue button. If someone suicidal wants to die, their will may still be done one second after they are done pressing the button of their choice. You can't exactly bring back someone from the dead though.

[Rizen]

First of all, you're assuming that everybody wants to live.

I am indeed assuming that everybody wants to live else they would have already killed themselves and there are no sure ways in this problem to die. You are never guarantied death. At best, you have a risk of death, thus suicidal people cannot press the blue button to die. The personal will to live of others doesn't appear relevent to the problem. 

More importantly, I'm assuming that the majority of the people who read this scenario don't want anybody to die be it voluntarily or not.  

This is where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. Death is not always a bad thing. Dying however can be very hard. A lot of people can't commit suicide for religious reasons. Suicide is a very touchy issue both socially and legally. It's not a simple matter of killing yourself if you want to. Like I said in my previous post, there are people going through cancer treatments who live in extreme pain. They should have the right to die. I believe in pro choice. If a fetus is no bigger than the head of a pin it isn't a human. If a girl gets raped she should have the right to get an abortion rather than having to carry the child under those circumstances.

[epronovost]

This is where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. Death is not always a bad thing. Dying however can be very hard. A lot of people can't commit suicide for religious reasons. Suicide is a very touchy issue both socially and legally. It's not a simple matter of killing yourself if you want to. Like I said in my previous post, there are people going through cancer treatments who live in extreme pain. They should have the right to die. I believe in pro choice. If a fetus is no bigger than the head of a pin it isn't a human. If a girl gets raped she should have the right to get an abortion rather than having to carry the child under those circumstances.

There is no certain death in this scenario though and assuming anybody who presses blue explicitly and knowingly wants to die is simply flatly wrong. I think it's a bit bizarre that you would consider that most people who press blue are suicidal and have for objective to die since I'm the only one on the thread to have explicitly chosen blue and I am definitely not suicidal. I don't think equating the choice of a blue button to a suicide button is accurate or reasonable. This reminds me of the dilemma of crossing the road. By crossing the road, you assume the risk of being hit by a car and being injured or dead. Me crossing the road doesn't entail that I want to be hit by a car, that I am fine with the concept of being hit by a car or that it's "no big deal" if I am hit by car. I expect people who drive to prudent when they do so as to not hit people with their car and I don't expect them to be emotionally unbothered should they do hit someone.

I am ready and willing to assume that some people who do want to die will press the blue button, but I think that denying their chance at suicide via button pressing is preferable to save the lives of everybody who participates.

I would also note that some people who want to die, but can't kill themselves be it for religious, psycho-social reasons might very well press the red button too. In fact, if they feel they can't kill themselves even if they want to, they might press red.

[Dānu]

In assuming risk, we accept the possibility of loss in exchange for the possibility of gain. It matters not what the gain they've pursued is, they have made the choice to accept loss should it occur. Who am I to deny them?

The people who press the blue button do so because of what is valuable to them. If I choose to press the red button because of what is valuable to me, how am I behaving any differently than them?

[Fireball]

My answer to these questions is usually "look for a third option".  I wouldn't necessarily know that a third option is there to be found, but I also wouldn't know if it weren't, and I'd rather gamble on that possibility than take either of the two options presented.

And look, someone posted a third option already.

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

How does that implode the universe?  There's no paradox there.  The way the problem is stated, you help contribute to immunizing everyone by pressing the blue button, while also immunizing yourself when you hit the red button.  "Both" is the objectively right answer.

.... well, objectively right if you're trying to minimize loss of life including your own.  If you're trying to implode the universe, it's objectively wrong.

Get a refit on your funny bone. It was a joke, because the thing is a joke.

[Dānu]

In economic terms, risk is assessed as an economic cost. So pushing the blue button is equivalent to decreasing our resources. This parallels other choices that we make in life. It's known that a vegan lifestyle, or even buying products that are humanely sourced, results in an economic loss for me relative to what cheaper products would cost. Yet I think it would be absurd to blame me for the excess negative consequences for our environment and our species should I choose to prioritize my own curent well-being over an indefinite future. In the same way, pressing the red button assures my present continuation in the face of an uncertain outcome. Sacrificing my own benefit for an uncertain alternative where more people gain is certainly altruistic, but altruism itself is not a moral imperative. In Kantian terms, I have no duty to be altruistic. So where is the immorality?

It's interesting that one of the popular alternatives for atheists is Humanism, wherein we irrationally posit that the benefit of humans is the highest good. As a moral theory, it posits placing what I value as a human above all other potential valuables simply because it is in my narrow self-interest as a human to do so. Yet for some reason, I'm being told by eprovonost that prioritizing my own self interest is in some sense bad and immoral. I fail to see from where he derives any moral imperative to consider someone else's self interest over my own. Failing a moral imperative to push the blue button, his admonition to push the blue button reflects nothing more than preference on his part. Again, why should I feel obligated by his preferences instead of being obligated by my own? Additionally, by assuming the risk of dying, he is exposing his loved ones to the risk of the personal loss of his presence. Who gave him the right to make that choice?

[epronovost]

It's interesting that one of the popular alternatives for atheists is Humanism, wherein we irrationally posit that the benefit of humans is the highest good.  As a moral theory, it posits placing what I value as a human above all other potential valuables simply because it is in my narrow self-interest as a human to do so.

Humanism doesn't it posits placing what I value as a human above all other potential valuables simply because it is in my narrow self-interest as a human to do so. That would be some form of utilitarianism or reciprocal ethics. It simply posit that the happiness, flourishing, benefit and prosperity of humans is the highest good. It's indeed irrational for, like all moral position, it's value based and values are not rational. They simply are something we have. I don't think morality is fundamentally rational.

Yet for some reason, I'm being told by eprovonost that prioritizing my own self interest is in some sense bad and immoral.

 

I fully accept and expect people to press the red button like you and explicitly to press the red button to save their own skin. I also expect you to know and accept that some people will not and that no matter our choice it's probably for the best if nobody dies for a button press and thus press the blue button. It's not like pressing the blue button prevents you from getting what you want. It only indroduce an ever shrinking risk the more the choice is selected. 

I fail to see from where he derives any moral imperative to consider someone else's self interest over my own.

I doubt this question is literally and fundamentally serious, but i'll interpret it as "why should I take on a risk to get the same result instead of taking the safer path for myself?". To which I would respond that the risk of personal death is fairly low compared to the risk of death of others and the more people accept a measure of risk the lower the lower the risk is. It's the opposite for the red button though. The more people press it, the likelier it is someone else will die. You derive a moral imperative from the fact there is more than one path to your self interest (being alive) one involves other people dying and another doesn't. 

Failing a moral imperative to push the blue button, his admonition to push the blue button reflects nothing more than preference on his part.  Again, why should I feel obligated by his preferences instead of being obligated by my own?

You do not share my preference that everybody should survive?

Additionally, by assuming the risk of dying, he is exposing his loved ones to the risk of the personal loss of his presence.  Who gave him the right to make that choice?

I did. I have the power to make choices and decisions as do you. It doesn't mean that others have to agree or even respect my choices. Agency necessarily comes with moral responsabilities and thus the judgment of others in addition to that of our own conscience. The clearer and the greater your agency, the greater the responsability and the harsher the judgement. This is why the analogy you presented in the first paragraph of that post about diet choices and environmental consequences (which I didn't quote) is a poor one. The button scenario gives you a very simple scenario and condition with, clear immediate and very predictable potential outcomes and a maximum amount of agency within extremely narrow choices. All of this makes your agency significantly clearer, greater and simpler and the judgement and moral responsability greater in turn than in the analogical scenario whose boundaries aren't even clearly defined, the choices far greater, the restriction ever present and the causal chain immense and web like.

[Paleophyte]

You're overthinking it.

I think this might be the first time that accusation has been leveled in a philosophy forum.

If you want to live press the red button. It's that simple.

Can I manage to not kill people?

Everyone has a 100% chance to live if they want to regardless of what anyone else does and that is an objective fact.

It's an objective fact that pressing the red button has no personal consequences. As long as you don't mind killing people.

If you can't disprove that you have no case.

I have no case based on the personal consequences. Do you think that we should examine the collective consequences of our collective choices?

The people who press the red button are not killing the people who press the blue button because everybody got the individual choice to live if they wanted to and there's nothing anybody else can do to change that.

No? Who is making that choice then? You might not like the fact that pressing the red button is a vote for murder, but that's what the question states.

To make this a little less abstract, do you believe that Trump voters bear no responsibility for their choice? That they are blameless for placing their vote where they did? Or do individuals bear personal responsibility for collective outcomes?

[Rizen]

This is where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. Death is not always a bad thing. Dying however can be very hard. A lot of people can't commit suicide for religious reasons. Suicide is a very touchy issue both socially and legally. It's not a simple matter of killing yourself if you want to. Like I said in my previous post, there are people going through cancer treatments who live in extreme pain. They should have the right to die. I believe in pro choice. If a fetus is no bigger than the head of a pin it isn't a human. If a girl gets raped she should have the right to get an abortion rather than having to carry the child under those circumstances.

There is no certain death in this scenario though and assuming anybody who presses blue explicitly and knowingly wants to die is simply flatly wrong. I think it's a bit bizarre that you would consider that most people who press blue are suicidal and have for objective to die since I'm the only one on the thread to have explicitly chosen blue and I am definitely not suicidal. I don't think equating the choice of a blue button to a suicide button is accurate or reasonable. This reminds me of the dilemma of crossing the road. By crossing the road, you assume the risk of being hit by a car and being injured or dead. Me crossing the road doesn't entail that I want to be hit by a car, that I am fine with the concept of being hit by a car or that it's "no big deal" if I am hit by car. I expect people who drive to prudent when they do so as to not hit people with their car and I don't expect them to be emotionally unbothered should they do hit someone.

I am ready and willing to assume that some people who do want to die will press the blue button, but I think that denying their chance at suicide via button pressing is preferable to save the lives of everybody who participates.

I would also note that some people who want to die, but can't kill themselves be it for religious, psycho-social reasons might very well press the red button too. In fact, if they feel they can't kill themselves even if they want to, they might press red.

You're putting words in my mouth I never said any of that. 

All I'm saying is I believe in the right to choose to die and the blue button, should the majority choose it, deprives people of that. And I'm only talking about a very small % of the population of course. It's not a black and white "saving everybody=good" issue. 

However, all that aside, let me ask you this: do you really believe over half the people would choose the blue button? That the people who elected a convicted rapist and felon so he could clean the immigrants out of the country would do the purely altruistic thing regardless of their own safety? 

I don't. I also don't believe people should be shamed for choosing to live when everybody has that choice.

[Paleophyte]

According to the scenario, in order to live you must press the red button.

This is factually inaccurate. According to this scenario, you will live if the majority chooses blue.

Why should I assume responsibility for the death of people who, irrationally, invite their own death by pushing blue.

Do you believe that there is individual responsibility for collective choices? That voters are responsible for the politicians that they elect?

They assumed that risk.

Where does this risk originate? From whose choice?

Who am I to deprive them of their choice

You haven't. Their choice remains theirs.

and who are you to blame me for the actions of free agents over whom I have no control?

Do individuals have no responsibility for collective decisions? If you sat down with one other person and plotted murder, would your involvement of a single other individual suddenly absolve you of guilt? Perhaps two? How many will you need to include before you are deemed innocent?

You're a caring soul and are letting your emotions steer your judgment along a clearly irrational path.  Encouraging irrational behavior will result in far more deaths over the arc of history than letting irrational people wander into their own demise.

You should examine the possibility that a person coming to a different decision from you is not an indication of irrationality or poor judgment on their part.