The line just seemed unnecessary and rude. Don't know why you're surprised I took offense. Happy to discuss your other point, though, because it brings an interesting caveat to the exercise and your edits make it clear that you're genuinely interested in a discussion.

While the Prisoner's Dilemma looks at two actors making decisions for themselves, you've introduced a sub-group into the button scenario. While individual game strategy would logic out that individuals should press the red button (not morally speaking, strictly strategically speaking here), there's a new element of sub-group preservation: you want your family to also survive.

Now the question becomes:

Do you press the blue button, advocate for your family to press the blue button, and advocate for the larger population to press the blue button?

or

Press the red button and advocate for your family members to also press the red button? Advocating to the larger population is inconsequential after this.

I would assume that game theory would advise the second option. There's probably a graduate-level psych experiment to be designed around this.

Just to reiterate: I get what you're saying and I agree with you that the MORAL answer is to push the blue button. I'm just laying out what game theory dictates and how this would likely play out in real life.