Red > Blue

This is a very dishonest argument to make. And, based on what you said, you didn't seem to actually read or at least comprehend my previous debate. But, you are correct that the choice of a certain option is more guilty of creating unnecessary risk, but it's not the blue one. You explicitly reframed the hypothetical using an analogy to try to make the blue choice seem more responsible for risk. But, such analogies are misleading. 

For instance:
Imagine that there are two buttons. One button does nothing. One also does nothing unless >50% of people press it, in which case everyone who doesn't press it dies. Clearly, if anyone dies, it's more so the fault of those who chose to press a button with no real reward in the first place.

The reason this counters your analogy is that in your analogy you framed red as inaction and blue as suicide, but that's a biased way of viewing the simultaneous and complimentary nature of the causal influence of the buttons.

In other words, I'm not saying that my analogy is accurate or more accurate, only that framing either button as inaction is fallacious because neither button is inaction.  So, the reason blue is ethically superior (meaning a standard of what choices people should generally or always make derives that choice) because it is the option that, if people were to actually generally press, would lead to the best outcome.