Moral Dilemmas

Tim Urban recently posted the following poll: “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 fewer than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?”

Most people (58%) picked “blue.” Is that the correct choice? (Make sure you read the poll prompt carefully before continuing.)

There are multiple perspectives.

One is that “Blue wins” is the only scenario where people pressing blue survive.

Another perspective comes from G. S. Bhogal, who commented: “Press red, and you guarantee your survival while not affecting the survival of anyone else, since 1 button press won’t meaningfully impact the outcome of 8 billion button presses. Press blue, and you gamble your life for nothing but a momentary feeling of moral superiority.”

What I find particularly interesting, though, is the question of which button is the correct advice, rather than which is the correct choice. If you tell others to press red, everyone who follows your advice survives; but if you tell them to press blue, your advice puts their lives at risk.

If there’s any lesson to be taken from this thought experiment, for me, it’s that there’s a difference between the most moral system and what’s the most moral advice. Paradoxically, safety nets are sustainable only in a population where self-reliance remains the dominant advice. If too many people rely on the safety net when they could have stood on their own, the system eventually collapses. Similarly, clemency can be exercised only in a country with low defection rates; otherwise, it becomes an invitation to defect.

Hence, to thrive, societies must be able to hold this tension: adopting generous institutions while giving advice that lowers unnecessary reliance on their generosity.