This doesn't seem to be a game that tries to be particularly clever--one button could kill you, the other certainly won't. Trusting that nearly everyone will avoid pressing the button that could kill them seems a reasonable assumption, and it's not necessarily an indication of a lack of altruism.

▲

empthought 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One button could kill you — if and only if enough people press the other button.

The other button certainly won’t kill you, but will kill everyone who pressed the first button — if and only if enough people besides you press it.

▲

eesmith 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

One button means you almost certainly contributed to homicide, since the odds of everyone pressing red is essentially 0%.

The other one does not contribute to homicide.

The right answer, by the way, is to not press either button. "The only winning move is not to play."

▲

bennettnate5 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Let me frame it another way and see if you still consider it homicide:

There's a cruise ship that needs to have a certain weight in order to not capsize. That weight threshold happens to be at 50% of the population (for whatever population we're considering in the original question). If the ship capsizes, everyone on it dies.

You're given the option: either get on the cruise ship or don't. Not to take an actual cruise, not for some other intrinsic prize, just file on it for a minute and then get off.

I don't see how those who refuse the risk of dying on the ship are complicit in the deaths of those who willingly choose to hop on it knowing the risks involved

	▲	empthought 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You don’t get to reframe the problem with different wording or circumstances to demonstrate your intelligence to others before they choose and you choose. That’s part of the thought experiment.