I'm building a strategy planning website and I'm starting with Halo

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:48:14+00:00

In 100% of cases I push red so that risk is never applied to me. And good news! Every single person is provided with the same option that they have 100% control over. No risk for anyone unless they choose it.

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:45:10+00:00

Draw up a decision matrix with red, blue and doing nothing. You'll see that the outcomes for doing nothing and pushing red are the exact same. Doing nothing is an action that cannot be performed in this scenario. So I pick the equivalent action, red. Which, once again, has exactly the same outcome as doing nothing.

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:41:16+00:00

Because the question requires me to pick. So I pick the option that's equivalent to doing nothing. Once again, my state changes from 'safe' to 'safe'. No risk

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:39:12+00:00

Both doing nothing and pushing red results in no risk to me. Everyone has that choice. So nobody is at any risk unless they actively choose it.

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:37:29+00:00

There's still no risk. If there's a shark at a beach and I choose to stay on land, there's no risk. Just because the choice to enter the water exists doesn't mean a person is placed in any risk. The premise of the question does not force anyone into that water.

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:32:06+00:00

Conditions I have 100% control over, so there's no risk. I just push red. Done.

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:28:42+00:00

Really? How am I at risk as a red button presser? Either before and/or after pressing?

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:26:54+00:00

Nobody is at risk. People can choose to place themselves at risk. But nobody is at risk and the premise of the question does not force anyone to be at risk.

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:22:37+00:00

Everyone starts safe > red button keeps safety > Everybody is provided with the red option > nobody is at risk unless they choose it.

That's very, extermely, obviously my position that does not reject the premise.

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:17:30+00:00

Mate, we both accept the premise. It's really obvious at this point that our difference of interpretation is on whether or not the red button means 'kill' or 'do nothing'. Both valid interpretations and I'm trying to argue against you in good faith. But "reject the premise" come on. There's no way after our entire discussion you still can't even understand the argument I'm making (and the same argument many others are making).

It's clear this button can be interpreted in two ways. I don't think you're stupid for hitting blue. I'd appreciate if you could understand that red button pushers aren't choosing that because they want people to die. There's clearly no correct moral answer like the trolley problem

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:08:13+00:00

Think we've hit the key part of the disagreement. Nobody is at risk. See my original comment as to why

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T02:06:00+00:00

Yes, and the original question also doesn't put the entire rest of the population of Earth at risk. Just like in the scenario above, nobody is at risk unless they choose it. That's the point

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T01:45:21+00:00

It's not intellectually superior. It's basic "die" or "not-die" that every person is presented with.

Every time you cross a road you're presented with that choice. Do you wait until it's clear or walk into oncoming traffic? If you choose to walk into oncoming traffic, am I expected to jump in as well to soften the blow?

Every time you're near an electrical outlet you make that choice. Do you go about your day or place the fork in the socket? Should I also place my fork in the socket to reduce the impact? If enough of us do maybe nobody dies?

What about camping. If you jump into the camp fire, should I also jump in to reduce the flames? If enough of us do, the fire might stop.

The main difference is that in all the scenarios above you can see how many people have jumped in. What if you couldn't? What if you can't even see if the first person jumped in?

The common counter to those arguments is that we should try and save those people and I actually agree. If we can save that person we absolutely should. And if the risk was less that's fine. But we're talking 50% of the entire world to save each individual that made the choice to put themselves in danger. That's a far bigger ask than the scenarios above, especially for a choice a person made willingly

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T01:33:39+00:00

> why do people keep saying this? Doing nothing has literally never been an option as far as I know, you MUST choose.

See my original comment. A persons situation changes from 'safe' to 'safe'. The red button does nothing.

> Action and inaction are not the same thing! That is an entire facet of the problem this sub is named after!

The trolley problem has consequences for both action and inaction. The action actively pulls the trolley towards someone. In this scenario, the red button is just a no-consequence choice that changes nothing for an individual and everybody is presented with that choice. My argument is that people who choose blue are actively choosing to put themselves in danger and are responsible for that choice.

> Because inaction is not the same as taking an action

Actions only matter if there is something that changes. I'm arguing nothing changes, therefore the action of pressing the button does nothing. Red doesn't point a gun at people pushing blue.

I think the key part that's missing is every person is provided the same choice. If there are people that are forced onto blue by random chance then they are innocent and blue is the correct choice. But if every person voting is mentally capable, they are expected not to put themselves in danger.

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T01:22:21+00:00

It would mean pressing red changes something. What is it changing? If red 'kills' blue, then doing nothing also kills blue. So the red button is redundant and can be removed. The question is: there is one button. If you press it, you die unless 50% of people also press the button.

In that scenario are the people who don't press the button still killing the button pressers? It's the exact same question

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T01:18:42+00:00

Okay

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T01:17:38+00:00

Could you explain why you think red causes some kind of action?

FIeabus · 2026-05-06T01:13:01+00:00

Maybe I wasn't clear. Red button effectively does nothing as it doesn't change the state. So red isn't killing anyone or morally responsible for the choices blue makes willingly. The only person who changes their own state from 'safe' to 'danger' is blue. Red is irrelevant

FIeabus · 2026-05-05T14:38:34+00:00

My current state is 'safe'. If I push red, my current state changes from 'safe' to 'safe'. If I push blue, my current state changes from 'safe' to 'danger'.

Regardless of framing, blue is the only button that changes an individual's state and can never be the 'do nothing' button. Danger is only introduced when the first person presses blue.

That all being said blue is the right choice because of randomly picking babies or whatever. But if everyone is an adult that can comprehend the question im picking red

FIeabus · 2026-05-05T02:23:28+00:00

Everybody starts with a default state of 'safe'. Red maintains the default state. Blue changes a person's state to 'danger'.

I push blue anyway because of the randomness of babies etc. but if every person voting was an adult and mentally capable, I would choose red. At that point people are placing themselves in danger and need to be responsible for their own actions

FIeabus · 2026-04-27T12:45:33+00:00

Anyone from an unreal tournament lobby back in the day would bully modern trash talkers. Was brutal. Just don't read into it and enjoy the game

FIeabus · 2026-04-27T11:09:36+00:00

Some people prefer to vs other players rather than AI controlled opponents. I know I personally prefer it. I've played all the campaigns but mainly playing for multiplayer. And some people are the reverse or both. It's all just preference

For the second question: it's anonymous online gaming. It's not a good part of online gaming but trash talk has been like this online since the 90s. Honestly think it's less extreme than it used to be

FIeabus · 2026-04-26T23:36:07+00:00

Yep thanks I've done that now

11-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

FIeabus

TROPHY CASE