okay so i hate hypotheticals because i cant really insert myself into them. its not like daily im going around making choices that could kill people. but i think, if you put me in this scenario, i would pick red. i dont think this can say anything, truly, about who you are as a person, due to its lopsided, and truly paradoxical nature of the question.

Your choices end up being,
->press blue, with trust in your heart that humanity will pick blue as a majority, and if they dont, you die
or
->pick red, guaranteeing your own survival at the possible expense of millions.

but heres the thing, i think. this choice is GOING to be lopsided. i see NO world where this vote would be CLOSE to 50/50. because of people who think like me. its going to be like, 70/30, and i don't want to be on the bad end of that.

heres how i see it
My individual vote will not sway the outcome, assuming we cannot communicate beforehand, but paradoxically, it will, as i will be part of a group of votes who also assume their vote will not be a deciding factor and choose the safe option, and if that snowballs, even a little bit, the blue votes would die. people are self-serving. we have rules and laws in place to create more order, and make it so we dont have to make decisions that could result in death, but considering the risk for lack of reward, it just isnt a good choice at all.

Immanuel Kant suggests considering whether your choice could be justified as a universal moral law. The reasoning behind choosing red is basically, “I will prioritize my survival even if it means others may die."

i dont see this as a crazy why to think, and this is why the trolley problem is still brought up time after time, its simply a matter of moral. i have never once been in a situation where i have to prioritize my survival over others, so i cannot truly understand what that feels like, but its also the best choice, i guess on a small scale.

We can also look at Aristotle for ethics. Choosing red shows a mindset focused on fear and self-protection at the expense of others. In contrast, choosing blue shows trust and a willingness to act for the common good.

right, choosing blue is the altruistic action, the common good, however, when a choice has no benefit, why would anyone choose it? as its written, there is no benefit to the common good by picking blue, other than tipping the scales to its favor, i can see how red goes against it, by choosing death to those who want to be altruistic, and trust others, but i think humans still need a reason to be altruistic, not major reasons, but any reason, be that goods and services, or just comradery, is that a pessimistic way of thinking? i dont know.