Blue vs red button debate

I found a very interesting logical debate. At least it is designed to feel like a logic puzzle, but it’s actually a values elicitation test. It reveals what you optimise for, not how well you reason. Red button guarantees your survival, but only yours. Blue button saves everyone if more than 50% voters pick this option. If not, they die. I see red as the „safe” option - definite outcome, no gamble. However, if majority chooses to self-preserve themselves they are the winners, ones that live while others die. But does this make them complicit in whatever % of humanity dying? Everyone knows the rule upfront and choosing blue means agreeing on the possibility of dying if they fall short of the 50% mark. Total possible death toll is directly proportional to their choice. Blue voters who fall short are as guilty as red voters. Why would anyone choose blue then? The answer is already visible in what humans have built. Not as proof that blue is correct, but as evidence that enough people,…