this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
635 points (96.1% liked)

Political Memes

5520 readers
2231 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
635
"we" the "people" (lemmy.cafe)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/politicalmemes
 

no one fucking told me about states banning RCV during all that yapping on here about how i should VOTE THIRD PARTY OR ELSE IM COMPLICIT in the DNCs CRIMES

it may or may not be joever, very blackpilled at this moment

edit it’s actually 10 states. 5 in the past two months.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AeonFelis 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

You didn't put any of them in that position. And you didn't put that other person in a position where scarifying them is the only way to save the five people. You are not responsible for the situation, and yet you ended up with the power to pick the outcome. Out of several bad outcomes, yes - but you still have the the opportunity to pick the lesser evil.

You wish you didn't get that opportunity. You wish you weren't in this position. The six people tied to the track also wish they weren't in this position. But this is not real life, where complaining about the unfairness and wishing the misfortune didn't happen to you can solve everything and make everyone happy. This is a moral dilemma, engineered to root out the smart solutions and leave you with the hard choice - four human lives weighted against your personal moral status.

And you decided that four lives is an acceptable price to pay so that you can keep basking in your innocence.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago

This is a moral dilemma, engineered to root out the smart solutions and leave you with the hard choice - four human lives weighted against your personal moral status.

that's literally not what it is. it helps you understand your own ethical instincts. i'm deontological, and no deontologist, having examined the full trolley problem, pulls the lever. consequentialists do, but i believe consequential ethics is bad. it leads to doing bad things and even internally cannot consistently tell you the right thing to do.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

you still have the the opportunity to pick the lesser evil.

i have a policy against choosing evil.

[–] AeonFelis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And the result of that policy is greater evil getting chosen.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not responsible for what others choose.

[–] AeonFelis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure this little fact will provide great comfort during the fascist regime.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago

this is a thought terminating cliche. it doesn't rebuttal what I said or develop your position.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

your characterization is bad faith. my degree is in philosophy. i know what my ethics are, and it's not "Bask in innocence at all costs". it's "do the right thing". the right thing cannot be determined by the outcome since we can't know the future, so it would be impossible to know what the right thing to do is. therefore, the ethics of the action must be in the action itself. murdering people is bad. pulling the lever is bad. qed.

[–] AeonFelis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You do know the future though. At least - to some extent. You know that one of two candidates is going to be elected, not matter what. Or, at least, almost no matter what. Maybe a huge asteroid will hit the Earth and the elections won't matter. But the probability for these is so low, that you can effectively "count on" the fact that one of these two candidates is going to get elected.

The only question is which one.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

knowledge of the future is impossible since you can only know true things and the future hasn't happened yet, so it has no truth value.

[–] AeonFelis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the entire anti-voting argument based on the knowledge that the candidate you'll vote for will do bad things in the future?

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

no? it's knowing what they've said and done in the past

[–] AeonFelis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What they've said and done in the past serves as an indicator for what they'll do in the future if elected. If you ignore that aspect, then voting becomes a system for rewarding politicians rather than a system for deciding the future of a country.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

but the ethics can't be in what they do in the future. the ethics of the action are in the vote itself, and the only information yo uhave is about the past.

[–] AeonFelis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So... ^(1)^ voting for bad people is bad, not because they'll do bad things if they'll be put in power, but because ^jump\ to\ (1)^?

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

the ethics are in the action itself. yes.

[–] AeonFelis 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So it all boils down to "because I said so" and I can't argue with that because you really did say so...

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin 0 points 5 months ago

I'm not over here trying to argue you out of consequentialism. there is absolutely no way you're going to argue a degreed philosopher out of deontology (today. you could learn, maybe)