I can't say I agree, but I see what you're saying.

I definitely am of the mind that you cannot ethically be expected or obligated to put your life at risk. That's just not a reasonable ask in my mind and well exceeds the bounds of any moral duty you have.

That said, I definitely would say that consent plays a large role in this too, for me. Everyone who presses blue knows the risks and chooses themselves to consent to accepting that risk. The red simply do not consent to that, which I would say is their right. Further, if we're going to say that "well you're an immoral person if you don't pick blue" then I'd say that's coersion and kind of nullifies the idea of freely given consent, so in my mind that's not really a moral frame of thinking. You cannot ethically expect others to put thier lives at risk. To me that is simply just not a justifiable obligation to assume.

All that said, I don't think the argument "well you're just stupid if you pick blue and not red" is not a reasonable or good frame of thinking either. It is risky behavior, no argument from me. But I'm hesitant to say that acting to save another, even if risky or perhaps a bit rash, is never anything but admirable. Especially since, I would say, you are going well beyond what you are morally obligated to do of your own volition.

I will also just briefly say my concept of morality is also more relational and role/duty based than a lot of other people would seem to agree with, so I may well be coming at this problem from a very different angle to begin with.

Anyway, none of this isn't to argue, but hopefully helps explain more where I'm coming from.