u/KeepItCheesySir

I'm sure most here have at least seen the question asked, but for those who want to know the original's wording:

"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 less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?"

Common Responses I've Seen:

Red: "If everyone presses red, then no one will die guaranteed", "Pressing blue is suicidal, don't make yourself a martyr", "This isn't a morality question, but a logical one".

Blue: "Pressing blue only needs to pass 50%, I believe in humanity", "I don't want to live in a button where all pressed Red", "Red pressers are selfish and think blue pressers should die".

These among other harsher comments have been floating under posts for as long as the question has been spoken, but something I noticed is how evenly they split on the gendered 'moral languages' described from Carol Gilligan, an author who has spoke a lot on the 'ethics of care', a practice that tries to focus personal actions to the interpersonal rather than on grand ideals.

There are 2 languages, the first is the language of justice, usually gendered to men which prescribes itself as the language of rationality. For example, in the Heinz dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz\_dilemma), the language of justice would firmly stand by the choice to steal the medicine, as depriving a life for payment is considerably less moral than stealing it, reflected as appealing to the 6th Stage of Kohlberg's moral development (Spirit of Justice > Word of Law).

In contrast, the language of care, often gendered to women, is the language of reciprocal action. In comparison to stealing in the Heinz dilemma, caring would include thinking of other ways to handle the situation, such as a payment plan, the ways in which your robbery may be halted, and the others your action of stealing will impact like the doctor. Compared to the 'rational' choice, reciprocal relationships and the means of managing them call the subject to look at all angles and has no clear answer.

Bringing this back to buttons, the red button pressers clearly and firmly believe in the 'rationality' of their choice without considering the circumstances of others. Not in a selfish way per se, but in that they know their choice is the correct one. If someone does not believe in their choice, then they are foolhardy, illogical and possibly suicidal. Because they are right, everyone will logically also select their choice, even if its clear others don't agree. This can reflect back onto philosophical history of Western Europe, where many parts are assumed to be the norm for everyone and uninfluenced by their environment. When people speak of utilitarianism, deontology and the like, very few outside academic circles consider that we talk of them like they can be applied universally and not within their regions, when we often paint the beliefs and practices of places like China or Sub-Saharan Africa by their regionality. Many commenters will likely live in NA or Europe, which have stronger cultures of individuality then the rest of the world, and would inherently have a greater distrust of strangers. They make the assumption that their choice is not colored by and individualistic and mistrusting society with large disconnections, but instead the default and 'natural' way to think.

Blue button pressers, on the whole, identify their reasons with how other people will act. They believe their family will likely pick blue, that communities they can never know will pick blue in a bid to save others. How a world where only those who could think to save themselves would be far worse to live in, how the guilt would weigh on them, all these considerations and more are far more varied and complex in comparison. According to Levinas, it is our duty to The Other (all that lies outside the self) which gives us inherent meaning and makes us individual. Pressing blue is more than a choice, it is a statement to accept the consequences on the belief that your choice will save others. It factors in the differences between people, the likelihood on how various backgrounds will encourage people to make a choice based on their personal morals and how many are willing to risk their lives to help The Other. You state that your duty to he potential Other outweighs the gains made by picking your own safety and putting those who press blue at risk.

TLDR: Interesting organic split on this question divides into language of justice and language of care.

So, in my world, the land of the dead is unknown to all, as the gods in my world are spirits of the land given form by human conception rather than as willing agents. When they are meaningfully sent to the other side, even they don't have a solid means of communication nor the ability to return short of turning into ghosts of themselves which causes a lot of issues.

Book of the Dead - A long time ago, humans were granted a divine artifact, a scroll from their god of death himself to explain how the Afterlife works, which they believe in. While it is divine, it was not the truth, but became the truth after enough people believed and practiced it. It works through rituals, which act as complex reference points for the greater calculus of magic to understand the route for a soul after death, with several other processes to preserve specialized organs and fuse the being post mortem into a tangible soul.

Process of Death - Half based on Egyptian myth, the human soul is made of 2 parts, the Ka or lifeforce, and Ba or memory. Ka regenerates and sheds slowly over the course of life causing people to age and, when the shrinkage surpasses the growth is when death is near. Ba contains all the memories and personality, and is what most consider the more important part. After death, they fuse into a bird-like container known as the Akh, which flies into the Land of Reeds carrying the heart post extraction to be weighed. When humans cannot be treated properly after death, they are given a carved scarab which acts as a temporary vessel for the Akh to use in its place, developed for soldiers or travelers lost without proper priests.

Raising the Dead - To raise a corpse involves a secretly destructive practice, by filling the body with new magic which takes the place of Ka and is 'deceived' to act in the same way, absorbing magic from its surroundings to move and animate. Ma'ut are the worst outcome, often done on improperly treated bodies, which happens when the Ba is not properly extracted (brain pulled out), basically jumpstarting the body with some memories intact, but also keeping all the centers of pain that one might feel in a body constantly falling apart. The Pharaoh deemed it necessary to then lock the price of freedom behind a high price, as it requires a high level cleric of Anubis or Osiris to disentangle their bodies properly. They serve as those to be exploited the most by the surrounding world without rights of their own after death.

TLDR: Belief shapes the gods and afterlife, but humans don't really know what it's like, relying on one document for their assuredness on how to live on after death. Mummification frees their lifeforce and memories which fuse into the soul, which carries the heart to be weighed in the trials of the Duat. If they cannot access their heart, a scarab amulet acts as a conduit, often given to bodies which cannot be treated properly due to decay or damage. To raise the dead, 'restarting' the lifeforce lets it act as a slow battery for the body, but sometimes, they leave in brain matter which gives the undead memory and agony, something they need to pay to be free of which puts them in position for exploitation even after death.