Over the past few weeks, the internet collectively has been gripped by a dilemma – red or blue? The discussion was spurred by this viral post:
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. 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. Which button would you press?
— Tim Urban (@waitbutwhy) April 24, 2026
Finally, discourse dealing with an ethical quandary! Seems like the perfect thing for a column here at The Prindle Post to examine. I will refer to this case study as the “Button Dilemma.”
The purpose of my writing here is not to convince you that there is one clear or more defensible answer to the Button Dilemma. But rather, I wish to consider the moral principles and reasoning that may justify choosing to press red or blue.
Game Theory and Rational Choice
To analyze the Button Dilemma many turn to game theory, an interdisciplinary field that studies rational decision-making and optimal choice. Specifically, game theory considers how best to secure one’s interests, particularly in situations where others’ choices are uncertain. We can analyze the various options in the Button Dilemma through the lens of game theory, and thus assess their rationality, using a grid:
| Others’ Choices | |||
| <50% Press Blue | >50% Press Blue | ||
| Your Choice | Press Red | You Survive + Blue Pressers Die | Everyone Survives |
| Press Blue | You Die + Blue Pressers Die | Everyone Survives | |
The grid helps reveal that the most rational choice, in terms of best situating one’s self, is to press the red button. Why? Presumably, the best outcome is that everyone survives. The worst outcome is that you and the blue pressers die. It is slightly better if you survive, even if the blue pressers die. Pressing red guarantees that you will not die, and it could still be the case that everyone survives despite your choice.
On the other hand, pressing blue seems sub-optimal. Like pressing red, it is compatible with the best outcome, everyone surviving. However, by pressing blue you enable the worst outcome to occur.
Thus, pressing red appears to be the optimal strategy. You guarantee against the worst outcome and may still secure the best outcome.
Of course, one might argue that by pressing red, you make the best outcome less likely. The majority must press blue for everyone to survive, and pressing red takes us one step further from that.
However, it is worth considering what one could reasonably foresee. It theoretically could be the case that your button press is the deciding one. However, this is unreasonable to expect. Given the sheer number of people pressing – more than 8 billion if everyone must decide – it is a near statistical impossibility that your press will make a difference. In terms of expected outcomes, you can anticipate surviving if you press red, but what will happen if you press blue is unclear.
So, it seems obvious what the rational choice is, pressing red. Doing so secures our own survival and is compatible with everyone surviving. In fact, if everyone chose red, then no one would die!
Of course, two issues remain. First, morality is often at odds with rationality. Often, morality may demand that we make what appears to be an irrational choice, at least through the lens of self-interest. Second, based on the above poll, it is virtually certain that at least some will press blue. Given this, what should we think of those who acknowledge this, yet nonetheless press red?
The Arguments for Pressing Blue
It is through these two issues that the moral arguments favoring pressing blue emerge. First, we can acknowledge that pressing red is the optimal strategic choice but nonetheless contend that one still ought to press blue. This is because morality may sometimes demand that we sacrifice our own well-being to benefit others.
In an incredibly influential paper, Peter Singer asks his reader to imagine walking by a pond where they see a small child drowning. Singer claims we are morally required to save the child, even if this means ruining your shoes. This choice may be irrational since there’s nothing you clearly stand to gain by saving the child and doing so will cost you something. But morality appears to require it. The mere fact that a choice may make you worse-off does not grant moral carte blanche. Thus, some argue that pressing blue is a form of morally required sacrifice; putting yourself at risk may save others and thus you ought to do so.
Some, in arguing that one ought to press blue, also consider a world where all the blue pressers died. Their claim is that this would result in an unpleasant, uncooperative world; the survivors would strictly be calculating individuals who put their own survival first, while very considerate people willing to sacrifice for others would be purged. This gets at a second argument for pressing blue, an argument from virtues.
Virtues are positive character traits, demonstrated through certain regular patterns of behavior, as well as one’s thoughts and feelings. They are the central focus of virtue ethics, the moral theory which holds that the morality of an act is determined by the character of the person performing it, rather than the act’s outcome or compliance with moral rules. If an act demonstrates that the person performing it is virtuous (e.g, by demonstrating compassion), then the act is good.
The idea behind the argument from virtue is that the willingness to press the red button indicates a defect in one’s character, a vice. In this case, one might argue that pressing red demonstrates an insufficient concern for the lives and well-being of others, callousness. Alternatively, pressing red may come from not trusting the majority to choose blue. Here, the vice may instead be cynicism. Either way, depending on one’s reasoning, the choice to press red could suggest a vice.
The Arguments for Pressing Red
To most effectively argue for pressing red, we should consider how a red proponent might respond to the arguments above. Let’s begin with the virtue point. In Aristotle’s account of the virtues, he defines them as a “mean” or middle ground between two extremes of behavior, one extreme being too much and the other too little. It would be cowardly for me to stand by and do nothing while someone steals an old woman’s purse, but it would be reckless for me to charge the thief if he took out a gun. Both are vices opposed to bravery.
One might argue that pressing blue indicates a vice of foolhardiness, as you risk your life to minimally improve others’ odds of survival. Again, as outlined in the game theory section, any individual choice is not impactful – hence, the idea of recklessness. If pressing blue made a greater impact, perhaps it would be virtuous to do so. But since the outcome is determined by billions of choices, risking one’s life for minimally better odds of others surviving may be reckless.
Additionally, one may also question whether there is indeed a moral requirement to subject oneself to any amount of deadly risk to save another’s life. Notice in Singer’s case, the sacrifice required of one is minimal, namely a pair of shoes. In the Button Dilemma, you will die if you press blue and an insufficient number of others choose similarly.
A proponent of pressing red may thus argue that it would be great of you to press blue, but it is not required. We might say the blue pressers get extra moral credit, but the red pressers do not deserve blame. Moral theorists refer to such acts as supererogatory. And this idea may capture what is happening in this case. When the cost of saving a life is as small as a pair of shoes, as we see with Singer, we are required to do it. But asking someone to risk literal life and limb to help another in need may be too strong of a requirement.
Still, the proponent of pressing blue can raise questions about both arguments here, specifically regarding the numbers. The arguments for pressing red emphasize the number of individuals involved to demonstrate how insignificant our choices are. But this cuts both ways. If any significant minority of people choose blue, then there will be literally billions of lives at stake in this case. Even if one’s choice raises the probability of everyone surviving by an exceedingly small amount, the sheer number of lives at stake may counterbalance the low likelihood of making a difference. When everything is accounted for, the Button Dilemma may, at its heart, raise a question about whether we ought to risk our lives to save a small number, or even one person, who, perhaps through an irrational decision, now has their life at risk.
Conclusion
Admittedly, it was fun for me to see the discourse surrounding the Button Dilemma sweep across the internet. Although it eventually went the way of the trolley problem and became meme-ified, the Button Dilemma touches on foundational moral issues when explored in earnest. Whether we think we should press red or blue may reveal something about our views on what we owe to others, the relationship between morality and rationality, and the kind of person we feel we should strive to be. As with many dilemmas, what may truly be revealed isn’t some universal truth that might defuse the conflict once and for all, but an understanding of ourselves and the way we weigh competing values. Quite the set of insights for a meme.