Then, you essentially admit that blue is the ethically superior button, you only note that you're not willing to choose it regardless, and you project this unwillingness onto the majority.
As I see it, the debate is essentially over.
But, there is more I would like to point out.
You say, "I’m trying to survive and return to my family and life."
However, if billions die (which you would intend to contribute to the possibility of rather than to the possibility of it not occurring), your original "life" and potentially even your family wouldn't be there to return to.
Even if everyone you're particularly interested in happens to pick red, if billions or even if hundreds of millions die, then that will still affect you. Negatively, as the collapse of global economy and the loss of social services is likely to cause chaos, violence, and many more deaths beyond those who chose blue.
So, even if we all "have some level of greed in our hearts", greed doesn't obviously point to choosing immediate survival over all forms of self-interest. Even someone particularly selfish can pick blue because keeping the world stable is within their interest.
You then finally say, "The only reason why people will die, is because they are too incompetent to know what they’re doing, or they are thinking of a problem that doesn’t need to exist. Therefore red is more logical and the better option to press than blue."
You're absolutely correct in the first sentence which makes the following conclusion in the next paradoxical. The only reason people would die is because people created a problem that doesn't have to exist.
What's the problem that doesn't have to exist? Death.
Which button is responsible for that? Both, but the most robust form of the choice of the red button is nothing other than the assumption of doubt in others inducing its own unnecessary justification.
For instance:
If 60% of people doubt everyone else and pick red, then 40% of people may die. Each person was correct to doubt because they would have also died if they didn't, considering that 60% chose red.
Now, if 60% of people trust that people wouldn't pick red, then everyone lives. So, each person who chose blue was correct in trusting others and correct to contribute to everyone's survival.
However, such intuitions need not be permanent and inevitable. We can reason about them. We can evaluate their affects.
Do you see how justification is only seems to be present afterward? It seems like whether the choice was right was based on what others chose. But, this is exactly the fundamental error.
Which of those two scenarios should happen? In other words, what kind of mindset and reasoning should people tend to have about the hypothetical?
Of course, the trusting one.
Next, my assumption is that you would say something like, "well, that's great in theory, but it'll never happen because people don't actually trust each other"
All you've done is the same thing but one step back, so to speak.
Should people understand that trust is better, then go on to still doubt that same trust (thus making that doubt viable), or should they trust in the trust that they understand should exist?
Thus, the ethical (and logical) choice for people to make in general is not the one based on presupposing a specific result but the one that would tend to produce the best result when generally chosen.
By assuming red wins (and when others do so as well) (which is really the only possible justification for red), you are not simply passively reacting to distrust or "greed". You are making the wrong choice. So is everyone else who picks red. Whether red ends up winning doesn't contradict this.
And, as long as you can accept this, there is little for us to disagree about.
