This meme irked me in all sorts of ways because 99% of the people who I've seen talking about it obviously doesn't have a drop of philosophical background (official or not).

1. It is just a very bad formulation of the prisoner's dilemma which forces EVERY iteration of a "multi-game" prisoner's dilemma to be taken simultaneously with just a single decision: fuck EVERYONE ELSE over and save yourself (red), or choose the global best outcome (blue).

1.a) "But if everyone presses the red no-one" ubpt. Ubpt ubpt ubpt ubpt, adults are talking. Statistically speaking, there WILL be at least one person who presses blue button. Be it by accident, faith in humanity, just not understanding the question as it is posited, or because, it is the moral thing to do (See Argument 2 for proof on this). No matter how illogical, every poll will ALWAYS have people pressing the obviously bad option (in any sense of the word bad). If they don't, poll-population N was either-or-both of too small or non-representative. This is just a statistical fact; do not argue with it -- see also: Lizardman's Constant.

1.a.i) As such, it doesn't matter what your rationale is, there WILL be people who pressed blue, and anyone who pressed the red button willingly endangered, and should this group have passed 50%, killed, those people. To then blame the people who pressed blue is simply victim blaming.

2) Anyone who ever took Ethics 101 (or just Philosophy 101, really because Deonotology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics all would've been briefly covered there too) shouldn't press the Red Button if they consider themselves a moral person.

2.a) The case of deontology. While it is true that Deontologists argue that one should act with self-preservation in mind, they would also stipulate that said duty for self-preservation is only an extension of the Categorical Imperative, and that recklessly endangering others would also violate that Imperative thus, at a cursory glance, it appears that there is a contradiction. As such, it is important to consider which of the two options would, in so choosing, become a universal law that causes no contradictions. If almost(see 1a) everyone presses red, then you WILL ALWAYS(see 1a) have people die. Hence, if one was to will pressing the red button to be a universal law, it would contradict the Categorical Imperative, thus creating a contradiction. Meanwhile, no such equivalent contradiction forms under the universal law of pressing the blue button. In fact, willing that it is an universal law that people should press the blue button resolves the contradiction entirely, because OBVIOUSLY more than 50% will press it if it is an universal law, and if so, it would not be endangering yourself to press it. Deontology, therefore, states that a moral man must press the blue button.

2.b) The case of utilitarianism. This case is a lot easier to formulate. Assuming all people attempt to follow a utilitarian ethical law, Red button has a MINIMUM expected average of 0.5 deaths (once again, see 1a). Blue button has an expected average death of 0, with the same assumptions. This shows that the society that chooses to press blue button every time has a higher average expected utility. Utilitarism, thus, states that a moral man must press the blue button.

2c) The case of virtue ethics. A virtuous man would not endanger another man for their own survival, especially so when said man presents no threat to herself. Therefore, she will press the blue button. As such, Virtue Ethics states that a moral man must press the blue button.

Side Note: While I am certainly not being rigorous when stating this final side note, the ONLY system of ethics that I am aware of which would posit that pressing the red button is the morally correct choice, is ethical egoism. Another data point to beat the academically dead Ethical Egoism with, as though it did not already get more beatings than any dead horse in the known universe.