# To blue or not to blue?

**URL:** https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/to-blue-or-not-to-blue/852
**Category:** Ethics
**Created:** [April 30, 2026, 2:34pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/to-blue-or-not-to-blue/852 "2026-04-30T14:34:50Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 596

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2026, 8:07am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/to-blue-or-not-to-blue/852/596 "2026-05-08T08:07:09Z")

</div>

> [@Manuel](#):
>
> In a rational society, this wouldn’t even require a second of thought.

Correct. Everyone votes red and everyone survives.

> [@Manuel](#):
>
> It assumes that a large portion of the population are such cynics that they think they ought to let others die in a genocide.

There are two ways to interpret the problem:

1. Red voters are voting to kill blue voters if they win
2. Blue voters are voting to commit suicide if they lose

This is why I want to address the problem in a way that doesn’t depend on either of these interpretations.

All we need to ask is if the below argument is valid or not:

1. Everyone survives only if either most vote blue or all vote red
2. It is probable that at least one person will vote blue
3. Therefore, I (we) ought vote blue

I say it is invalid. What do you say?

If it is invalid then the only things we need to consider are:

1. Anyone who votes red survives
2. Anyone who votes blue survives only if most vote blue

Therefore, I vote red. There is a rational reason to prefer voting red over blue and no ethical reason to prefer voting blue over red.

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/to-blue-or-not-to-blue/852)._