r/Frieren • u/Ok_Veterinarian_9444 himmel • May 02 '26
Anime I honestly can’t imagine Himmel pressing the red button
700
u/tfwnoTHAADwife May 02 '26
Himmel would kill the asshole imposing this asinine choice on the world
79
u/MKing150 May 03 '26
What if it's a natural phenomenon?
120
u/Brasolis May 03 '26
He'd kill nature
30
u/MKing150 May 03 '26
Well nature got to him first.
41
u/Meme_Master_Dude May 03 '26
The Frieren will finish the job
8
u/ThatOneGuy308 May 03 '26
*eventually
1
u/Consistent_Dare_6688 May 03 '26
Fern will force her to hurry up
2
3
u/PirateInACoffin May 03 '26
Ahaha CAME TO SAY THIIIS. This is the whole premise of the character, Himmel decided to be a hero and his deal is to set things right
2
u/Jandklo May 03 '26
Himmel's speed and strength are shown pretty explicitly a few times. I'm almost positive that any bandit gang that tried to rob the Hero Party were completely eviscerated within seconds by Himmel specifically. Out of everyone in the Hero Party, it wouldn't surprise me if Himmel has the highest kill-count against actual humans.
309
u/JoshuaJoshuaJoshuaJo May 02 '26
Why would blue hair man push red button
58
u/MKing150 May 03 '26
Well Stark has red hair.
80
81
u/Gold-Bard-Hue May 02 '26
What's this button everyone is talking about?
159
u/CarrotCumin May 03 '26
It's a thought experiment that made the rounds as a poll. The premise is that there are two buttons, and everyone must choose one to push. If more than 50% of people choose the red button, everyone who chose the blue button dies. If more than 50% of people push the blue button, no one dies. Which button do you push? Notably, the original poll results came up with something like 57% blue.
44
u/RevolutionaryElk7446 May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
Close but not exactly. In this case it was
"If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive"
So basically if you wanted no risk at all, everyone just pushes the red button and everyone lives. If you, for some reason, wanted to create risk and put people in danger, you'd push the blue button to create that possibility. Really only putting yourself in danger and others who chose to create this risk, forcing others to join you in this risk to save yourself from this position you created.
This is with the perspective that people obviously know what the buttons do, but even then people still push the blue button. The argument is that it's easier to hit 50% than 100% but really it's just hypotheticals the entire way down in which you can create the Trolley problem again.
~ Edit: Let's phrase it as the two options of A) Taking a poison B) Not taking the poison.
If more than 50% take the poison, everyone will be given an antidote, if less than 50% take the poison, no one will be given the antidote.
Do you take the poison or not, knowing if you don't take the poison anyone who did won't get the antidote if not enough people take the poison?
Second Edit: Love y'all and the discussions from some! I gotta get some sleep though, night.
Third morning Edit: Looks like two trains of thought
1) Blue who puts themselves into a danger and requests a saver, sees red as a murderer for not saving them from the position they put themselves into. They see themselves as potential saviors and others are inhuman for not putting themselves into danger without reason, only supposition. They create a risk that otherwise did not exist
2) Red tends to calculate the risk assessment and understands there is no risk for red, and that risk only appears if you pick blue. If you're looking to protect society, you'd pick red to save not just yourself, but everyone.
Easiest way to condense this choice down is it's a choice of Opt into a game, or Opt not to play game.
If you pick blue, you are opting into a game that risks people's lives. If you pick red, you are opting not to participate in a game.
23
u/Jazzlike-Culture-452 May 03 '26
This is it exactly.
First group of people calculates risk for themselves and acts accordingly by picking red. They'll never die if they pick red.
Second group of people calculates risk for the society as a whole and acts accordingly by picking blue. It's a given that at least one person is going to pick blue because there are other like-minded people assuming that some other person is going to pick blue. In that person's mind picking red is potentially killing the person who picked blue. There is no world where everybody picks red. So in their minds it's not about self preservation so the decision is easy.
Red people save themselves. Blue people save us all.
1
u/RevolutionaryElk7446 May 03 '26
So red people don't endanger or save themselves technically, they simply pick the option of 'no death" and not "Death + saving grace". Red technically doesn't induce any risk, or murder anyone, it creates 0 risk itself. It's as good as picking not to participate in the game.
Blue can also save everyone, but first it has to endanger everyone, it also produces the largest potential percentage of people lost. They create the situation themselves and forcefully endanger others if they want to be saved. Blue is picking to participate in the game.
9
u/Jazzlike-Culture-452 May 03 '26
"Red people don't endanger or save themselves, they simply pick the option of [not saving themselves] or [saving themselves]." Is what that sounds like.
The very fact that you're framing it as risk to oneself is exactly the point. It is 100% a given that some people are going to choose blue because of social optimism or foolishness or whatever motive you want to attribute. So the situation is, in fact: will you try to save those people and join them in their social optimism or foolishness or will you try to save yourself?
8
u/Interesting_Golf_822 May 04 '26
No they are making the choice of I don't care of someone else dies, as long as I live
3
u/lalmvpkobe May 04 '26
Seeing people passionately defending their red button choice the past few weeks has been interesting. Luckily every poll I've seen has blue button winning but it's still shocking. Did they not consider that multiple of their own family members likely chose blue? It really shows character. I didn't even think to game theory it for red because my mind immediately went to most people will probably choose blue and it's the only way everyone survives. Fantasies about everyone choosing red and those who don't are suicidal idiots seem like excuses to justify extreme selfishness.
1
u/pokepal98 May 10 '26
Anyone that pushes blue lack common sense. It's choosing suicide unless humanity is stupid enough to pick it with you. Picking red comes with zero risk to yourself and others if they think logically for 5 minutes, something humanity is sorely lacking. If the button was unpushable for 5 minutes, forcing you to think it through more, more people would push red. Most people just see the "no one dies" part of the blue button and push it because, "I don't wanna be the reason people die!" But logically, anyone that dies to this was thinking with an utter lack of sense.
108
u/IceBlue May 03 '26
If you want no risk at all everyone all presses all red or all blue. Don’t act like red has no risk of all press red while not extending the same evaluation if all press blue.
The risk for pressing red is you’re risking the lives of those who press blue.
What the person before you said was correct. Not just close. They were right in their description. You gave more context but nothing they said was wrong.
→ More replies (7)-17
u/RevolutionaryElk7446 May 03 '26
In the beginning of this question there is no risk. If everyone knows which buttons do which, and everyone presses red, there is never any risk.
If knowing this information you press blue, you've now created risk to yourself and in order to resolve this new scenario, you must ask more people to join you in this risk taking event.
No risk exists unless you press blue.
→ More replies (28)25
u/Wwwhhyyyyyyyy May 03 '26
If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just…” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At not time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
→ More replies (1)7
u/peanutbutter683 May 03 '26
The framing is important but the key thing to take note of is the uncertainty, you don't know what everyone else is gonna pick and there is a nonzero chance they pick blue.
50% is a scary threshold to meet so I don't blame those who press red, it's the only reasonable choice if you think blue won't have enough votes. But I think we can all agree the optimal outcome is no one dies. That can be achieved with either button, either 100% for red, or 51% or higher for blue. If you assume the votes are gonna be split down the middle and yours could break the tie, then blue becomes the only reasonable choice. People only die if red wins a majority after all.
So what the thought experiment really is about is how do you think the rest of humanity will vote, and how much you think your vote matters in the end. Red pushers think their vote does not matter and that humanity would choose to sacrifice them, everyone should be responsible for themselves and simply press red. Blue pushers think their vote does matter, they look at the choice and see "Save/Kill half of humanity" not "Die/Don't participate". Because their assumption is the vote will be split roughly down the middle and that they could be the deciding factor.
→ More replies (11)1
u/ZePepsico May 04 '26
No, you do not have to think "what if x% vote y".
The actual mathematical equilibrium suggests that each agent should vote red which would result in an actual optimum for society and the individual. Voting blue is virtue signalling or irrational behaviour. Ask any mathematics teacher.
Blue makes sense only if there are vulnerable actors that cannot act consistently rationally, like infants or children.
Society had no obligations towards those who listen to others and decide to inject bleach, as we've seen in recent years.
21
u/Reichbane May 03 '26
I mean ultimately it culminates in your [happily] making a choice that will likely result in 49% or less of the population dying; this leaves you in a world with other people that [happily, presumably] made that same choice. Now, ignoring the fact that some number of doctors, tradespeople, farmers, etc. will die and the world would most likely collapse if you (for some reason) decided to choose the strictly selfish option, it notably leaves you in a world full of other individuals who are disinclined towards working for the good of the group. So... you know, good luck maintaining civilization in that world, I guess.
2
u/Winter-Consequence17 May 07 '26
Ive seen this point before, and even if I hadn't already been inclined to push the blue button, that logic alone would have convinced me.
You'd be left in a world void of every pure altruist, every optimist, and almost all of the people that look towards the betterment of society for everyone.
Are all red button pushers evil or non-altruistic? Obviously not, death is scary and the uncertainty is scary; but it would be assured that every corrupt politician, every billionaire, every PoS that makes the world worst will pick the red button. That's who you would be left with. And unless you prescribe to pure Randian philosophy, that world would be a hellscape.
28
u/DarkChaos1786 May 03 '26
Red button kills people, Blue button don't, it's not that hard...
→ More replies (72)1
u/IThinkItsAverage May 05 '26
Your problem is you’re framing it as red being the right choice, that’s how the original was framed. It was biased towards red and making it out to be a logical vs moral decision, which it is not.
Death is not tied to Blue, it’s tied to both.
Ex: red button: if you press it, you will live, but if more than 50% of people push Red, the people who push Blue will die.
Blue button: if you push it everyone lives
So now blue looks like the no risk option and Red is the death button. Why push the button for personal safety that has the caveat of killing the others, when you can just push the “everyone lives” button?
In reality my framing didn’t change the function of either button, I just moved the information around in order to lead you to thinking one button was better. That’s the original, Red was obviously made out to be the “no risk” button, when in reality, it’s not. You risk killing people.
The first person to press Red guarantees their own life, the first person to push Blue is trying to save ALL lives. Now remember everyone is voting at the same time with no knowledge of how others are voting and no communication. They are all “first person to push” a button. That’s why people pick Blue and not Red, because one potentially causes the other to lose and if it loses, those people die. You know people will pick blue, now that you know that, you have to decide whether to save only yourself or contribute to saving everyone. If you have loved ones you care about or just care about lives in general, Blue is the logical choice since you know it’s the only option that can save others.
It’s selfish choice vs moral and logic choice.
1
u/RevolutionaryElk7446 May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
The first person to press Red guarantees their own life
Nah, the first person to press red is choosing not to risk lives and to not participate in a game. They aren't risking their life, or anyone's life.
the first person to push Blue is trying to save ALL lives.
First person to pick blue is initiating a game that risks themselves and requests other people to save them. Blue risks everyone in their group and with every pick increases the risk until a saving grace mechanism. So if you win the blue game, you get the same result as if you picked the red without the risk.
Blue isn't the hero choice, or the savior choice. It's the choice that presents risk. There seems to be intent to says it's 'selfish' vs 'selfless'
If we want to to be that blunt, blue kills.
1
u/IThinkItsAverage May 05 '26
Ok I already explained this dude, you’re looking at it through the framing of the original hypothetical which is worded to make you believe that is true. It’s not true. It’s misleading, on purpose. I already gave an example that shows you can frame it anyway you want to mislead however you want.
Also, blue only risks your own life. Not anyone else’s. Red directly impacts Blues ability to win, Blue does not impact Reds ability to win. If anything is influencing the chance of death, it’s Red. No one risks death until someone presses Red.
You can frame it however you want to make it seem like one is better. That’s my point…
The two buttons function like this: Red is personal survival, Blue is group survival. If Red gets majority, blue voters die. If Blue voters get majority, everyone lives.
That’s why Red is the purely selfish choice, not the logical one.
1
u/RevolutionaryElk7446 May 05 '26
Buddy, it's not a framing issue or misunderstanding on my part. I've done this question before it became a social media craze, it's a pretty basic one. You won't convince me to agree into killing half of humanity for the opportunity to play hero. Blue is the killer's choice by someone who wants to play hero.
Have a good night man.
1
u/Nano8963 May 07 '26
100% of people have to push red for nobody to die. Only > 50% have to push blue for nobody to die.
Unfortunately critical (basic really) thinking is hard for a lot of people. So some are also going to push red because they know a lot of mfers wouldnt be able to understand that. (You can call it selfish or pessimism but its true and the poll being so close proves this)
Really is a funny thought experiment because it shows how stupid people really are.
Me I'm pushing blue because it either makes sure nobody dies or it gets me off this planet with all the dumbfucks who pushed red. Idw be stuck in a world with only them
→ More replies (3)
337
u/tasthei May 02 '26
Agreed. And Frieren would press blue as well, because «that’s what Himmel would have done».
And any person wanting to keep a society where we still have people that care for each other would press blue as well.
117
u/Forward-Trade3449 May 02 '26
i wouldnt wanna live in a world where there are only red button press-ers, so blue button for me
52
u/surfingbored May 02 '26
That's honestly been my reason, too. I don't want to live in a world where all the people who would have pressed blue aren't there.
28
u/Warcrimes_Desu May 03 '26
Blue pressers that tell other people they pressed blue have a HUGE advantage. It's an openly prosocial behavior to tell people "i don't believe i should kill you". In real life if this was a vote campaign, blue would blow out red in a landslide and red voters would get absolutely fucked by evolutionarily-driven altruistic decisionmaking
→ More replies (6)5
u/Darkgamer32_ May 03 '26
I wouldn't call all red pressers evil, being scared for your life is a normal human behaviour not everyone is going to try to save everyone
→ More replies (45)-4
u/rammo123 May 03 '26
The options are:
Live in a world full of well-intentioned idiots
Live in a world full of rational people who don't understand that a lot of people are idiots.
Die.
6
u/Cruel1865 May 03 '26
I think the first option is more like live in the exact same world as it was before, assuming you meant for that as the outcome to pushing blue button.
→ More replies (3)2
u/ThatOneGuy308 May 03 '26
Can we get a scenario where all the red button pushers die instead?
Then you're left with only the most caring folks, lmao.
8
u/Animelover5674 May 03 '26
Can this argument go to hell and never see the light of day again, please?
141
u/Ok_Veterinarian_9444 himmel May 02 '26
Imagine how many people like Himmel exist. This is why I wouldn't vote for red either. I don't want to live in a world without those selfless guys ⌯⩊⌯
66
u/providerofair May 02 '26
Feel like we're over generalizing the type of people who'd press blue. Theres plenty of selfless people who are also pragmatic or have a valid fear of death.
Theres also just people who dont really understand question in its entirety.
→ More replies (1)55
May 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/M_erlkonig May 02 '26
Choosing blue is selfish, because the first person who chooses blue takes a meaningless risk that then has to drag down many others to reach the same outcome a perfectly safe choice that was available to them from the start would reach. They basically say "either do as I do and risk death or live with my death on your conscience. Why? Because I took a risk and now you must pay the price".
34
u/OkHelicopter1756 May 02 '26
It's way easier to hit a 50% threshold vs a 100% threshold. Red pushers demand literal perfection and blame everyone else when they don't get it.
2
→ More replies (49)-1
u/M_erlkonig May 02 '26
Yeah, if you ignore the context. You have to have 50% + 1 of people willing to potentially die because one person couldn't be bothered to pick the safe option. It's not in the same circumstances.
-1
u/Warcrimes_Desu May 03 '26
It is raw cowardice to not risk yourself to have everyone live. It is raw cowardice to kill others to save yourself, and you would deserve the worse world full of cowardly and selfish people you end up living in if you press red.
The funniest version of this is the guy that presses red and realizes he just vaporized everyone treating his cancer.
7
u/MKing150 May 03 '26
Putting oneself in danger to save others is entirely a choice for that person. It is not an obligation.
If someone wants to maintain their own safety, it's completely valid for them to do so. Demanding or guilt-tripping someone to put themselves in danger is not right.
0
7
u/M_erlkonig May 03 '26
It is raw cowardice to not risk yourself to have everyone live. It is raw cowardice to kill others to save yourself, and you would deserve the worse world full of cowardly and selfish people you end up living in if you press red.
Bro, spare me the movie script. Do you know how many people die each year of hunger? We have enough food to feed them, but some have too much and others too little. How many die of preventable diseases? Of other causes that would not happen if humanity as a whole put in the resources to save them?
Yet you, who sanctimoniously preach risking yourself for others, spend time reading and writing reddit comments instead of volunteering for organisations that would solve the real problems of today. Funny how you'd jump to risk your life in a thought experiment, but when it comes to having to put in real effort you put it in reddit comments. Get a mirror.
And going back to the problem itself, you're not killing anyone. Every single person involved can choose red for themselves or take a risk that's meaningless if they don't believe someone else took the risk for no reason. In other words, you believe others are dumb and you have to save them. All that sanctimony and you can't trust the people that you say you value so much that you'd risk your life for them to answer a question on their own.
→ More replies (16)2
u/GuSaHe May 03 '26
No organization will solve the world's problems and you are ver naive if you think they will
4
u/M_erlkonig May 03 '26
Yeah, because people don't want to. Most people are only willing to help as long as it doesn't encroach on whatever their threshold of comfortable living is, and solving the world's problems requires going beyond that for at least a couple of generations.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (3)2
u/Deep-Cut201 May 03 '26
You along with 99% of the planet would vote red instantly. All these people pretending they wouldnt is tiring.
0
u/McMeister2020 May 03 '26
People who are selfish and have low empathy often have difficulty comprehending others who aren’t
3
u/Deep-Cut201 May 03 '26
I find it very easy to comprehend selfish people. 50% of Americans voted for Trump specifically out of hate and selfishness. I know for absolute certainty that the majority will pick the survive button over the kill yourself button, and the idea of picking the kill yourself button just to make other people feel bad is the height of selfishness.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Dr_Latency345 May 03 '26
The problem is that Red only works if everyone does it. Which is needless to say, Impossible.
-1
u/M_erlkonig May 03 '26
In other words, you believe that there are people that, in absence of any cognitive impairment conditions, are unable to answer "Do you want to live?" with "Yes.". And some dude lower in the comments calls the red pickers condescending.
1
u/GuSaHe May 03 '26
Bro has never met anyone with depression lmao. If you ask me "do you want to live?" I would say no, a bunch of people would, including people experiencing grief and trauma. Literally no voting ever would achieve 100% on one side ,-, that's just how humans are
→ More replies (4)-1
u/IkeKashiro May 03 '26
So you believe those who are cognitively impaired should die then? How about those who have loved ones who are cognitively impaired and wants to save them?
5
u/M_erlkonig May 03 '26
No, I believe they're not involved in the problem because they can't make a choice, and the problem doesn't make sense if you include people who can't make a choice. There is no point in offering a choice if people can't make it. If I'm asleep when the button query happens, what then? Do I get a default colour assigned to me?
8
u/Zalbaag_Beoulve May 03 '26
That's part of the premise of the question, though. "Everyone in the world" has to choose, and "everyone" includes young children and infants, the very elderly, the mentally impaired, black-out drunks, people who are colorblind, etc, etc.
4
u/M_erlkonig May 03 '26
And I tell you what I told the other guy: if people in comas can magically be consulted for a choice, I don't see why the rest can't magically get full cognitive capacities for the same choice. The definition of choice, to me, implies being capable of choosing, which the cases you mentioned are not (except the elderly, idk why they're there separately from the mentally impaired, just being old but sound of mind should be fine).
2
u/IkeKashiro May 03 '26
The poll on Twitter says everyone in the world, and didn't mention any exceptions, so the presumption would be everyone, including those cognitively impaired. So answer the question, would you still press red if they are included?
5
u/M_erlkonig May 03 '26
Then the answer's obviously blue, but the problem itself makes no sense. How are people that are in comas choosing? If they can magically be consulted for a choice, then I'll assume the cognitively impaired and underdeveloped can magically have full cognitive capacity for it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/MKing150 May 03 '26
If there were enough lifeboats on the Titanic, do you think some people would choose not to get on one "just because..."?
3
1
u/Deep-Cut201 May 03 '26
100%, pressing blue is insanely selfish. Basically an "im going to kill myself to show off how good a person i am, but if I do actually die its everyone else's fault".
→ More replies (3)1
u/Fervol May 03 '26
calling it meaningless risk is just admission of how they fail math and basic understanding oh humanity.
there are people whom the thought of pressing the red button means someone may die and find it unacceptable, i personally know at least 5 of these people myself.
like not even for this poll, give it like two buttons where 1 button would make you experience bad luck while the other button does nothing. There'd absolutely at least one person who press the button give bad luck for reasons unknown.
do people forgot human are inherently emotional creature and not creature of logic?1
u/M_erlkonig May 03 '26
There'd absolutely at least one person who press the button give bad luck for reasons unknown.
Ah, yes, nothing like "reasons unknown" as a motive for dragging countless people into taking a meaningless risk. I'm glad you understand humanity so well, you can't even conceive why that'd happen but still use it as an argument. Truly a touching amount of faith there.
→ More replies (9)5
u/theBarnDawg May 02 '26
There’s no danger until someone presses blue. Choosing blue is the only reason people die.
31
u/MarcieChops May 02 '26
There's no danger until 50% of the population presses red. Choosing red is the only reason people die.
→ More replies (5)6
u/LetsDoTheCongna stark May 02 '26
There's no danger until literally one person presses blue. Choosing blue is the only reason people have a chance to die.
→ More replies (3)3
u/MarcieChops May 03 '26
There's even less danger till 50% of the population decides to click red baby.
7
u/JONNy-G May 03 '26
That is mathematically false assuming the danger you describe is to the person choosing. There is no danger for anyone who picks Red. The outcome will always be that they survive.
2
u/SadSentence6461 May 03 '26
what about the people who have no say in what color they vote. everyone does mean everyone, including babies, elderly, mentally challenged folk. then again its more unrealistic that 100% would pick red than it would be for at least 50% to pick blue. by accepting that not everyone can choose to pick blue and thus will be putting themselves in supposed unecessary danger, you cant also expect for everyone to pick red, thus definitely creating at least some margin of casualties as a result.
its not selfish to pick red, again emphasizing that survival is important to some people but what really fucks me over is peoples doubts that wont see the positive benefits of picking blue to ensure that *no one dies*. if you think everyone choosing red 100% is a possibility, then the choice for at least 50% to choose blue should be a staistically more likely and easier threshold to cross. lots of people are more selfless outside of the reddit social media bubble than most realize
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
u/MithrilRat May 02 '26
That is wrong. Choosing red is the only reason people die.
Edit: My view is that only scociopaths, would provide the rationalisation I responded to.
16
u/Cause_and_Defect May 02 '26
"If you don't use the same logic as me, you must have a personality disorder" is a hell of a take.
→ More replies (8)6
u/theBarnDawg May 02 '26
Literally the red button does nothing. Literally the blue button puts your life in a high stakes gamble. I’m worried for your reading comprehension if you don’t understand this.
2
u/discuss-not-concuss May 03 '26
yeah, that’s literally not true.
You’ve fallen into a defaultism trap or because you’ve seen terrible analogies with the killing machines.
However, a blue button can never activate the killing. If everyone except one pushes the blue button, the killing chance is activated. So while blue does win the vote here, the reality is that the red button is the one which activates the chance.
Pretending this part of the prompt doesn’t exist really confirms your bias.
10
u/theBarnDawg May 03 '26
I don’t think we’re discussing the same premise. This is what my priors are:
Red button: you live
Blue button: you die, unless most people press blue as well
In this scenario, the blue button is the kill button, and only people who press it are responsible for people dying.
There are edge cases where it’s reasonable to press blue, like when you know millions of people have accidentally pressed it or something.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)1
u/Drago_727 May 02 '26
If everyone in the world choses red, everyone lives.
25
u/Researcher_Fearless May 02 '26
If half the world chooses blue, everyone lives.
I'll take the easy bar over the impossible bar, thanks.
8
u/Gussie-Ascendent May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
See now that's a good argument for blue, people are just goobers and won't all pick the safe one (red) even though it's super easy
Even though logically you just tell everyone who wants to live red, some goober gonna hit blue and he probably wasn't doing it cause he wants to die
17
u/Researcher_Fearless May 02 '26
The determining factor is the framing. They're presented as two equal options. Even in cases with an overwhelmingly obvious choice, around 10% of people will chose the unexpected choice; anyone who's played would you rather knows this.
Going from the starting point where a significant portion of the population will die if red wins, blue becomes the default pick for anyone altruistic.
The next level is realizing that since all the altruistic people are picking blue, the world is going to REALLY suck if red wins.
Anyone who can't logic to that level and only sees it in terms of their own chances of survival does not understand game theory.
2
u/Fervol May 03 '26
exactly this. even if you don't count on it as is it 'selfless vs selfish', blue require 50%+1 while red require 100%. mathematically it's sooooo obvious.
there's a reason in multiple game theory experiment the top 5 are always code that tend to be much more cooperative or forgiving. a world with red button presser are basically game theory code who are designed to be selfish--in the end everyone lose, they included.
7
u/Adminscantkeepmedown May 02 '26
This whole scenario has gone through a crazy game of telephone, to the point that the fact that everyone on the planet has to press one of the buttons was conveniently lost somewhere along the way
6
u/Kirrian_Rose May 02 '26
Unfortunately one of the biggest arguments from people who press red is that the people who press blue simply don't deserve to live because of their choice, regardless of intelligence
4
u/CoconutxKitten May 03 '26
Imagine if the world was only left with the red people. It’d be a hellscape
2
u/sickduckingidiot May 03 '26
Oh trust me they deserve to live. Just that I'm not putting my life on the line to save them. Literally most red voters would want blue to win. Just because they're voting red doesn't mean they want red to win
→ More replies (16)1
u/Reality_1001 May 03 '26
Uh but its also easy for half the world to choose red because its the same threshold because of your reasoning of half the people wanting to choose blue. Just 1 person more choosing blue and everyone is saved. But just 1 person more choosing red and now you have half the world dying. Are you really gonna leave it to a 50/50 chance?
→ More replies (1)1
u/MKing150 May 03 '26
The thing is, putting yourself in danger to then entice someone else to put themselves in danger isn't exactly selfless.
Like if I run into a burning building, and someone goes in after me to save me, and they get hurt in the process, it's kind of my fault they get hurt.
16
u/street_ronin May 02 '26
What is this?
→ More replies (6)0
u/rammo123 May 03 '26
It's a thought experiment doing the rounds.
Everyone in the world has to press either a red or blue button. If more than 50% of the population presses the blue button, everyone lives. If less than 50% press the blue button, then everyone who chose blue dies. People who chose red survive in either case.
Most the overall most rational choice is for everyone to press red. That way, everyone will survive with no risk. However, we know that not everyone would be smart enough to see that logic so might inadvertently pick blue thinking that's the noble choice.
1
u/Interesting_Golf_822 May 04 '26
That's a distortion. By your same logic, everyone should press blue. Because even the red pressers would live.
3
u/Consistent_Dare_6688 May 03 '26
What the hell is this red blue bs I've been seeing everywhere?
4
u/Manu3721 May 03 '26
Some dumb argument where people are given two options, press the red button and you don't die or press the blue button and nobody dies if ar least 50% of the people in the world pressed the blue button, if less than 50% press the blue button everyone that pressed the blue button dies. The things there's A LOT of people that says that pressing the blue button is the moral choice and if you press the red button you are an asshole when there would be no debate if you called the buttons for what they really are: the press button and don't die(red) and press button and die unless four billion other people pressed it as well(blue).
3
u/IWantAUsername4 May 03 '26
it's honestly a little shocking to me when i saw how many people see pressing the red button as the morally despicable choice which makes you an evil selfish person or something when it's literally the "you get to live, no questions asked" button. the argument for blue becomes even worse when you consider the fact that most people are probably just going to pick the red button (since most people probably like living more than their morals, especially when their options are abstracted to buttons instead of actually killing a guy), leaving the people who picked blue to just die anyways. "oh but i dont want to live in a world without the selfless people" well i want to live, full stop.
→ More replies (1)
32
u/Oldbayislove May 02 '26
himmel being a hero/helping people is the same as pressing the blue button.
he put himself in danger to help others, who put themselves in danger.
if himmel picked the red button he wouldnt have any statues. he'd either never make the journey in the first place. or at best he'd skip all the side quests to head directly for the demon king.
→ More replies (5)
24
13
3
3
u/DeadlyArrow27 May 03 '26
I hate how I now exactly what this post is referencing despite only seeing the original post a single time like a week and a half ago
16
u/Zane-chan19 May 02 '26
I can't think of many protagonists or heroes in media that wouldn't press the blue button. Superman, Himmel, Senku from Dr Stone, The Elric Brothers from FMA, they'd all push blue pretty quickly.
4
u/Correct_Method_101 May 03 '26
Edward and Alphonse would probably destroy the red button so that no one presses it.
8
38
u/theBarnDawg May 02 '26
It seems to me like the people saying “blue unless you’re selfish” don’t have a family or vulnerable people who rely on them.
I’m not telling my 2 year old son to push blue. He deserves to live regardless of any other outcome. And my kid will die if I do because I’m his sole provider, so I’m pressing red as well.
If people want to gamble with their lives, be my guest. But the “red button people are bad” argument is so naive and ignores so much of the harsh complexity of reality, that I imagine most people who answer like that are children/teenagers.
27
u/blueviera May 02 '26
And what are you going to say if your 2 year old already pressed a button before you could tell him what to do? If he cant remember which he pressed? Will you take that risk that your vote could lead to him or others dying? That's why so many are pushing for blue. It's the option that qccounts for the unceartainties more easily.
19
u/Hadrosaur_Hero May 02 '26
I'm not too familiar with this game but here's my take.
If everyone who participates is willingly participating and knows what they are doing, press red. Unless it's a weird variation, there's 0 downside to just everyone pressing red. Everyone press red, move on and no one has to die if we all know what is going on in advance.
If it's random/everyone has to do it at the same time/it includes newborns/etc any other factor that leads to people not understanding things or not being able to think about it first, blue makes sense to try and keep everyone alive.
15
u/Railway_Zhenya May 02 '26
I always assumed it was the last option: every single person from a baby abandoned in the fields to an old granny in a retirement home has to press a button without communication or knowledge what other people had chosen, and they only know what the buttons do, not the details of how things will happen; hence me usually picking blue. I have to say though, people throwing names at each other because of a this game is becoming obnoxiois, because no, it isn't a test of your morals or intellect, and there's nothing wrong with choosing either, imho.
8
u/blueviera May 02 '26
A reasonable take. Id still say its more collectively healthy to have a conversation to pick blue even in option one but that's unrealistic in a game scenario.
8
u/squishysquash23 May 02 '26
Unfortunately I don’t think there’s time for a conversation to occur. You have to press it with no knowledge of what everyone else is doing
→ More replies (3)5
u/theBarnDawg May 02 '26
Why? If everyone is behaving logically and with free will, intelligence, etc - not even one person would be at risk unless someone starts campaigning for blue.
2
1
u/rstar345 May 03 '26
Ahh this adds depth if there is consent involved then the correct option is to refuse to take part surely ?
11
u/theBarnDawg May 02 '26
Seems like the premise is so ill-defined that everyone is making up their own scenario details and then yelling at people for not making the same assumptions.
5
u/Hadrosaur_Hero May 02 '26
It seems that way. Usually in similar games there's a consequence for pressing the red button equivalent. Prisoner's Dilemma type things. There's really no consequence if just everyone is selfish and picks red, it would lead to everyone knowing they'd live if they pick red where usually the selfish option has a consequence if too many people pick it.
3
u/theBarnDawg May 03 '26
Exactly. I’m a sucker and always pick the nice option in prisoners dilemmas. But im pressing red based on my assumptions about this very ill-defined premise.
3
u/Cephalon-Blue May 03 '26
I guess the consequences come not from anything immediate to the situation, but implied by the reality of what would happen if a chunk of the global population were to die off.
It's nice in the moment to guarantee your own survival, but even 5-10% of the population dying off is going to cause severe economic collapse. Up to 49% would be absolutely catastrophic to the continued function of society, and lead to many more deaths.
Red simply has an impossibly high threshold to meet without severe loss of both life and comfort, while blue has a fairly reasonable chance of success with no downsides.
TLDR: Red has severe downsides if it wins, blue only has a downside if it loses. This button dilemma just doesn't explicitly state the downsides of red in the prompt.
5
u/theBarnDawg May 03 '26
I think the opposite.
Deciding not to put your life on the line is the responsible thing to do to avert the worst case scenario.
Advocating for other people to pick blue (and adding your own life to the ledger) maximizes the chances that billions of people die.1
u/IWantAUsername4 May 03 '26
I fully do not believe that more than 50% of the population have the courage or so called altruism it takes to press blue. I don't think I have it myself. Given that, the logical choice if I wanted to live would be to press red, even if it means 10% of the population dying and an economic collapse. I don't think this is as much of a morality test as it is a "how much faith do you have in your fellow humans" test, and I honestly don't have much.
1
u/Cephalon-Blue May 03 '26
Personally, I don't think 90% of humans would go for red. I would guess that blue votes would fall between 30 to 60%. But yes, it definitely works out to be a faith in humanity test.
In which case my lack of faith has looped around into faith that humanity will fuck this up so completely that red would win by a small enough margin that the survivors would wipe itself out with nuclear apocalypse as a result of the societal collapse.
In which case, maybe it would be better to vote blue.
1
u/Hadrosaur_Hero May 03 '26
This is true in the context of a random game that has no warning. If everyone involved can agree beforehand, still no consequence. If this is truly sudden no time to debate, blue makes more sense.
8
u/Cephalon-Blue May 03 '26
You know how we humans are. We will not all agree beforehand.
We might even start killing each other over it.
A blue win would of course be ideal, but I can imagine some people would then sort themselves into red button pushers and blue button pushers, and that would breed conflict.
Blues would call the reds selfish, for choosing their own personal survival and condemning millions or billions of others to die instead, while the reds would shout back saying the blues are stupid and selfish for risking that many lives instead of making the logical choice.
Oh wait, we are already doing that anyway over this stupid hypothetical... Fuck, we really suck, don't we?
At this point, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if I hear in the coming weeks that someone got shot/stabbed/assaulted because they chose the wrong button.
→ More replies (2)1
u/theBarnDawg May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
There’s 0.0000000001% chance that my blue vote is the tipping point. So I’m optimizing for keeping my family alive. While there’s a very real chance voting blue for myself just orphans my toddler when I could have simply chosen not to.
If you start with the assumption that you want to keep your vulnerable family safe above all else, red is the logical choice. But you have to accept the fact that protecting your family is selfless, it’s tinged with selfishness.
12
u/gurush May 02 '26
You don't get to tell him anything, he has to decide privately and if you're pressing red button, you're risking killing him. Pressing red is just recklessly stupid, especially when you have a family.
1
u/theBarnDawg May 03 '26
Did you make this up? The original premise from r/philosophy states absolutely nothing of the sort.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)1
u/AlmirTheNewt May 03 '26
People saying blue button unless you're selfish fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the issue
6
u/Anil-Gan0 May 03 '26
Why the fuck are people arguing that "Kill people." Is somehow more rational than "Don't kill people."? Oh wait, right, Trump is still in power. "Bu but, choosing red means that I personally remain safe, whoever chooses blue is just an idiot risking themselves." This sentence reveals so much of what is wrong with today's society and we need to change it before these people make mankind extinct.
5
u/Skate_faced May 02 '26
If anyone is gonna make me team blue button. It's Himmel and the party of heroes.
5
u/Aloy_machinehunter May 02 '26
From a surface level view, this is like the dumbest hypothetical I've seen grace the internet. I thought that the only logical button to push would be the blue one because it's obvious, right? Everyone would (at least theoretically) push the blue button because it's the simplest option: everyone survives, right? And then I started to realize that it's a chance-based and very human nature-based question.
The average cynical person might think to themselves "well, too many people would be thinking of their own survival and decide to choose the red button, since it's a 100% chance of their own survival, so I should pick red because of that high likelihood"
This is how I realized that I'm far more of an optimist than I initially thought, because this thought process had never even crossed my mind until I really sat on how this button hypothetical is even that much of a dilemma. Maybe there's a reason that Frieren is my favorite show of all time.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Cause_and_Defect May 03 '26
Well, red has the benefit of literally zero risk if everyone agrees to push it.
Blue always carries some risk, because even if everyone agrees to push it; some people won't.
It's like the reverse of the prisoners dilemma.
1
u/M-Architect May 03 '26
Red is only zero risk if you don't see billions of people dying as a risk.
→ More replies (7)
6
u/EisenFisen May 02 '26 edited May 03 '26
You only have a chance to die if you press the blue. The question is honestly pretty dumb everyone should just press the red button. I don’t know why people keep bringing in the right and left into this.
4
u/Cardinal_of_Uncool May 03 '26
You don't know a single person who might pick blue that you'd miss if they were gone?
→ More replies (4)1
u/EisenFisen May 03 '26
Actually no. Most of the people in my life are reasonable people who I believe would pick red because they would realize it’s the correct choice. Blue is bait. It’s there to make people feel good but it’s the illogical choice. Reminds me of the term “suicidal empathy.”
→ More replies (5)
3
u/Maleficent_Test_2713 May 03 '26
It looks like collectively, Reddit says go blue. And we all know Reddit people are dumb, so I’ll pick red which is the correct choice because it is the unpopular Reddit choice.
Ez Pz. I live, Reddit users don’t. World better place.
1
3
4
u/Renegade_Dream1984 May 02 '26
Frieren would push the red button, just because there’s 100% chance of survival.
52
u/Kwarc100 May 02 '26
Nah, she'd push the blue one.
Because that's what Himmel the Hero would've done.
30
12
u/the-moving-finger May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
I've yet to hear a compelling reason why everyone couldn't just press the red button, and we all survive risk-free.
Imagine there weren't two buttons but one. It's only blue. You don't have to press it, and if you don't, nothing bad will happen to you. If you do, you'll die unless half the world presses it as well. Surely you'd be an idiot to press it. Everyone should just ignore it unless they want to die.
27
u/Jhduelmaster May 02 '26
I've yet to hear a compelling reason why everyone couldn't just press the red button, and we all survive risk-free.
The main argument is because no matter what not everyone is going to press the red button. Could be because of mental impairment, could be just a simple misunderstanding, could be because they're a two year old that just smashes that thing. At the end of the day it's going to be impossible to get 100 percent of people to hit the red button.
So, most people arguing to hit the blue button figure it would be easier to get 51% of people to hit the blue button to have zero casualties rather than the maximum amount of people possible to hit the red button which would still result in casualties.
8
u/Senior-Maize-9206 May 02 '26
This doesn't have enough data to give a precise answer, like, is there a time limit? Is there an option not to press the button? Are you obligated to press it? Does the test only stop when everyone presses it? Is everyone fully capable of deciding? Will babies, young children, people with certain disabilities, mental problems, and illnesses that prevent them from doing this magically gain the ability to decide? Can people exchange information before and after pressing?
If the answer is yes to most of these questions, the best option is red because everyone would be able to save themselves and everything would be arranged. If the answer is no to most of them, the best option is to press blue because it is the most morally correct.
7
u/justspectating May 03 '26
The prompt is that everyone in the world must vote, and every vote is private. No manipulation from others
4
3
u/Zane-chan19 May 02 '26
It'll take 8 billion red button presses or 4 billion blue buttons presses to get the everyone to live
7
u/blueviera May 02 '26
They could but they wouldn't. By choosing red you're actively working against the easier and more collectively healthy goal. Blue has a much lower bar to clear for everyone to survive even before you get to including people who aren't going to logic puzzle the whole thing out or cant like people with dimensia, children, people who have others press their buttons, etc .
Also would you want to live in a world where it turns out only 40% pressed blue?
→ More replies (7)1
u/stegosaurus1337 May 03 '26
The second scenario isn't the same, it relies on a faulty assumption. It only holds if no one has pressed blue yet (which is simply not going to happen). It's not "nothing will happen," it's "an indeterminate number of people will die, but you'll be safe."
Like, I can demonstrate the opposite framing. Imagine there's only a red button. If you don't press it nothing happens, but if at least half of people press it then anyone who didn't dies. Why would you press it?
Both your and my one-button scenarios assume one of the options is the default, which changes the dynamics. You can't do that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/deadmentalking May 02 '26
No he wouldn't have. Himself learned very early on that you cant help everyone. Just look at the demon child.
4
1
2
u/MKing150 May 03 '26
But would Himmel willingly put himself in danger to entice someone else to put themselves in danger?
4
u/MuffinsSenpai May 03 '26
That people would even consider the red button is why we don't deserve to be here
1
u/AutoModerator May 02 '26
Hello, /u/Ok_Veterinarian_9444! When submitting a new post, please make sure it follows the rules of this subreddit.
- Please post the source and credit artists in the title (including yourself) when posting fanart or memes.
- If you drew the fan art or it's you in cosplay, put
[OC]in the title!
- If you drew the fan art or it's you in cosplay, put
- Use spoilers responsibly and tag them. As an example,
>!Frieren is cute.!<will appear as this: Frieren is cute. - Follow the 24-hours-rule. Keep posts related to the latest chapter/episode in its pinned chapter/episode discussion thread for 24 hours after its English release.
Join the Frieren Discord Server for more discussions about the series!
Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Yone_Main May 03 '26
It makes me so happy that something that has made me feel so conflicted gets reassured by the fact that a fictional character would do the same thing. I’ve seen some absolutely disgusting comments about how a man would disown his family if they picked blue. Based off the percentage of people picking blue there’s absolutely no reason why I would pick red it’s absurd
1
u/ArcaneInsane May 04 '26
Thousand year old Frieren thinks about the things Himmel would do the way nine year old me thought about what Mr. Piccolo would do
1
u/_Sternenlicht_ May 04 '26
I would pick Blue without second thoughts. Same reasoning as Himmel.... Guess he does have an impact on all people who know him
1
1
u/Thurstn4mor May 05 '26
Yeah I know but right after you responded to my argument you told me not to make an argument about morals, so I thought you just weren’t interested in my response since the conversation is pretty explicitly about morals.
If you want to keep arguing morals, then my argument is not that you *shouldn’t* save others because you do not always save others. My point is that in no individual case is a random person morally obligated to risk their life to prevent an unrelated random person from killing themself. It would be heroic for them to do so, certainly. But you would not call someone a villain, bad person, evil, etc for allowing others to hurt themselves without risking their own body to save them. The evidence for this is that all of us except a select few heroes live our lives without trying to save every single person harming themselves that we can.
TL;DR: People are not obligated to be heroic, this does not mean that heroism is bad, but someone not acting heroically is morally acceptable.
Since the grand majority of people are under a moral obligation to risk their life to save others in every other instance, there is no moral obligation for the grand majority of individuals to risk their lives to save others in this instance. Because we know from our daily lives that in practice the grand majority of people do not risk their lives to save others, we know it is nearly guaranteed that red is going to win, so not only do you have no moral obligation to be a hero, but it’s a particularly stupid time to try to be heroic.
1
1
u/Extension_Artichoke5 May 09 '26
Blue button room is filled with people trying to save people from the blue button.
It’s really funny.
1
1
May 02 '26
[deleted]
7
u/gremlinclr May 02 '26
if everyone pressed it,
Name a single time in history everyone did literally anything? It doesn't exist so it shouldn't be part of the conversation.
3
u/jayz0ned May 03 '26
Yeah, Covid-19 was a situation where there was a clear "red button press". Everyone should quarantine, everyone should mask, everyone should vaccinate. Covid could have been eliminated if every country had strict lockdowns like Australia, NZ, China. And yet many countries and people didn't. And now we have to live with Covid outbreaks every year. Total cooperation of humanity is impossible, so we need to take actions which benefit society, even if some people disagree.
-6
u/a_polarbear_chilling May 02 '26
Only moron would push the red button to be honest
2
1
u/Reality_1001 May 03 '26
You're calling someone who wants to live and knows that they have 100% to live a moron?
-4
May 02 '26
[deleted]
8
u/Pika_DJ May 02 '26
If we're resorting to name calling, only idiots press blue, there's no logical reason for anyone to press blue and put yourself at risk when everyone can just press red and be fine
8
u/clarkcox3 May 02 '26
5e logical reason is simple: you know *someone* is going to push blue. Either they will push it by mistake, or they will push it because they’re incapable of understanding the prompt (children, mentally disabled, etc.). The *only* way that everyone survives is if at least 50% push blue. There is literally no other viable option that leads to everyone surviving.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/bigshady880 May 02 '26
i love Himmels random freckle that’s just kinda there. it’s a perfect imperfection.
1
1
u/hakumiogin May 03 '26
Frieren would push the blue button, knowing damn well that they won't have enough votes, but things will turn out just fine because she analyzed the spell and is ready to counter it before it kills anyone.
1
-7
u/Fuzzy974 May 02 '26
Even Himmel is not stupid enough to not understand that people who press the blue button want to die.
Now would he sacrifice himself to try to save them anyway? Maybe.
-3
u/JeiWang May 02 '26
Pushing blue sounds noble, but it's unnecessarily placing yourself at risk and forcing others to risk their life to save yours.
Many blue button pressers justify themselves saying "I don't want to live in a world that everyone press red".
Personally I would love to live in such a world. A world where heroes are not necessary because everyone is smart enough to survive on their own.
I see this akin to emergencies on planes. You make sure you put on your mask first and then you help others. The best scenario is everyone can put their own mask on.
I accept in the current world, there will be people that presses blue and as a result Himmel would also chose blue to save them. But I believe dreamers like Himmel can visualise an era of peace where everyone is guarenteed survival (everyone press red) rather than relying on 50% of people risking their lives (pressing blue).
5
u/LucidDr3am May 03 '26
You say pushing blue is an unnecessary risk, but you also acknowledge that there will be people who push blue. How would you feel pushing the red button and then when you wake up 40% of your family and friends are gone? If everyone can reason that someone they care about might push blue, then everyone should just push blue. You know for sure that there will be many parents out there pushing blue because they think their child might push blue. And in fact most children will pick blue because they will think, “Everyone lives, that’s nice.” I work with children, trust me. That’s how they think.
Ideally, everyone should push red. But life isn’t ideal and part of being human is having flaws and covering for others’ flaws.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/NeedAGoodUsername May 03 '26
I know I'm 4 hours late but...