You choose, even when you don't vote
You choose, even when you don't vote
https://midwest.social/post/18536008
Edit of yesterday's meme with accounted for non-voters
Let me fix that for you.
This shit is getting annoying because it's such a fundamental misunderstanding of what the trolley problem tries to tell you. You cannot use the trolley problem to prove that utilitarianism is better. The entire point is to show the difference between deontology and utilitarianism. It's just tiring to watch.
True, it's a misapplication of the original thought experiment.
But it also kind of lays bare the consequences of choosing "the moral high ground" over an outcomes-based approach to morality. And I think that is still a useful thing.
Good meme that angered everyone.
keep voting, keep paying, this time will be different
What would you have us do instead? If your answer is revolution, great. Where and when do we meet up?
Thank you, I will keep voting, and pressuring my representatives to do what I believe to be right. You keep doing nothing, and whinging about it, as if that is how anything was ever accomplished in this country.
TLDR If you care about the Palestinians then vote for Harris because her being president is useful for reaching a ceasefire.
The other post about this topic got locked as I was typing a reply. I feel like my comment is relevant to this discussion so I would like to leave it here. I would think this reply, the original comment, and this post are tightly related and are all about the same thing.
One thing I’ve learned this election cycle is how few people have any knowledge of utilitarianism. Genocide is better than genocide+1. Not acting is a moral choice, and frequently a cowardly one.
There is utilitarianism the ethical philosophy and there is utility. Utilitarianism is still a form a moral reasoning as it subjectively elevates the maximization of happiness and well-being. And what constitutes happiness and well-being is not universal. Utility is a method of analysis used to determine how effectively a stated action advances a stated goal. Utility relies on empirical evidence, observation and math, and is goal agnostic.
For many people on Lemmy, their goals are probably roughly summarized by wanting to end Israel's genocide, Palestinian statehood, and general prosperity for the Palestinian people. Harris has stated multiple times that she wants a ceasefire. Trump has stated he thinks Israel needs to be allowed to finish what they started. Trump has also stated he's going to be a dictator on day one and that his followers are never going to have to vote again.
Moral reasoning that is consistent with our goals paralyzes us in this case. Voting for a candidate whose administration oversaw and contributed to a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Voting for a candidate who is threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Not voting or voting third party when the candidate threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is favored by the electoral college in a FPTP system is subjectively immoral. We can subjectively state one of these options to be the lesser evil, but we have no empirical way to measure evil. Thus in theory, there is no way to form a consensus with subjective moral reasoning alone.
For people whose goal is to support the Palestinian people, it is useful to elect Harris, because someone in power who wants a ceasefire is a useful step to actually getting a ceasefire. Where as Trump will allow Israel to complete it's genocide and end our democracy. This would allow Israel to continue it's genocide indefinitely without US citizens ever being able to influence US foreign policy again.
Everyone is prone to moral reasoning. It's intuitive and philosophers have been doing it since ancient times. In this case, there is a consensus around wanting to help the Palestinian people. But any given moral reasoning derived from our goal doesn't necessarily lead us to a course of action that can help them. With a clear goal in mind, utility provides a clear-cut and consistent answer in the form of voting for Harris. edit: typo
For people whose goal is to support the Palestinian people, it is useful to elect Harris, because someone in power who wants a ceasefire
I have seen no material evidence to this effect.
That's not even an argument against Harris per say. But this insistence in a double-super secret pro-Palestinian insider movement insider her staff is delusional. Harris has been outspoken in her defense of "Israel's right to defend itself" time and time and time again. She's backed every effort to send more weapons of war to Netanyahu. She's defended the UN ambassador's decision to vote against sanctions for Israel or an end to hostilities or a future legitimized Palestinian state. She's directly fundraising from AIPAC. At this point, claiming she's a pro-Palestinian candidate is about as rational as claiming Trump is pro-Ukrainian.
In this case, there is a consensus around wanting to help the Palestinian people.
There is a relatively broad national consensus. But we are devoid of a political class reflective of those views. Hell, two of the most outspoken pro-Palestinian advocates in the US House - Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush - got kicked out of their seats in primaries fueled by AIPAC lobbyists. Ilham Omar and Rashida Tlaib nearly lost their jobs in the same manner.
The internal institutions of the Democratic Party are openly in favor of the genocide of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and of the people of Lebanon, and of Iran. If this shit keeps up, we could see the war spread to Jordan and Syria and Iraq as well. Certainly, there's no love lost by Americans for two of those states.
The political consensus is in favor of more killing, an escalation of the scope of the war, and free rein for the Israeli leadership in its mission to subjugate the surrounding territories. With continued US support, its very possible that the Israelis will get exactly what they desire, and we'll be looking at a permanent occupation and continuous holocaust of native peoples on a scale not seen since the genocide of First Nations people in the US.
I have seen no material evidence to this effect.
Here's a user's comment that listed three sources:
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
She’s taken a stance, multiple times. The left doesn’t want to hear it.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
If you're sitting on the October Surprise please share it. All the evidence we have suggests that Harris wants a ceasefire. While Trump wants a christo-fascist dictatorship and is content to watch Israel complete its genocide. The candidates have distinct positions despite your argument's attempt to conflate the two.
At this point, claiming she’s a pro-Palestinian candidate is about as rational as claiming Trump is pro-Ukrainian.
I just wanna take this a step further and say it's actually less rational.
What Trump is talking about is stopping aid to Ukraine, something which he had previously supported and delivered on.
What Harris isn't talking about is stopping aid to the people killing Palestinians, a position that she has never supported.
Of course I'm not actually saying Trump is actually pro-Ukraine. But if I had to choose one, I'd have an easier time defending that claim than the idea that Kamala is pro-Palestine because at least I'd have something material to work with.
it is a good thing there is no option for political violence on this helpful chart about the distribution of political violence
you wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong ideas about the direction political violence has to flow
You choose, even when you don’t vote
The problem that we have is that we don’t choose. If we had a free choice to vote for what we wanted, then nobody would need to tie themselves into knots justifying their support for genocide.
If the choice is between Hitler and Hitler+, you better believe that I’m not voting for Hitler, I’m going to be doing everything I can to dismantle the system that forced that choice on everyone. Because that system isn’t democracy.
Good luck dismantling the system with Hitler+ in power. You'd have an easier time dismantling it while 'regular' Hitler is in power.
Hey look, a reason to vote.
Am I allowed to call someone a fascist on here if they literally say, "Vote for Hitler?"
Everybody knows this. We’re just asking people to make the best choice given the circumstance. A protest vote against Harris isn’t going to teach them anything, a loss isn’t going to teach them anything. We’ll be left with a situation worse than we are in now.
I don't remember Hitler lite defending sexual assault victims. Or fighting for justice
By your logic, you're more genocidal because at least she's publicly asking for a ceasefire. You're just ignoring those requests and shouting over her
Imagine fighting for people's rights your entire life only to have nut jobs pretend like you're killing children.
How many people have you helped?
Except, you’re implying that’s not what you’re doing. You want to believe that your vote can accomplish everything you want, as easily snapping your fingers, but that’s not how it works. No positive change in history has happened in a day, but you seem to want to vote as if positive change can happen immediately.
Well, we demanded to do other things than voting to push the Dems to end their support for genocide. And got heavily attacked for it, daring to dirty the nest. We got insulted as being Trump supporters in disguise.
The idea that a serious threat to Dems voting turnout if they continue genocide would force them to change their stance before the election, was immediately met with hostility and gaslighting at worst and "lets wait until after the election" at best. Well waiting until after the election didnt work the past 25 or so years. Not with Clinton, Obama, Clinton or Biden.
Well you should do that pissing match during the candidate selection then. Don't drag it out to after the choices are set.
Why was the choice set since like a year already? And we met the same hostility and "reasons" 9 months ago. Truth is not enough people care enough to push for change. They just wanted to feel that their lot is not threatened, solidarity be damned. Well this does not work, as history has infamously shown time and time again. Unless people band together they'll be picked off one by one.
This is more direct, but I always saw the original thought experiment as a way to explore that very concept - is inaction a "choice"? IMO, the only rational answer is Yes.
Even without the third rail, "no choice" is very clearly a choice. People just selfishly want to believe they don't share responsibility if they just let things happen "naturally", as of their inaction means they aren't involved. But they are. We all are. Pretending otherwise is foolish.
There are over 200 million voters.
A thought experiment about an individual choice is not even close to applicable to the choice facing a single voter since in that thought experiment not-choosing is the same as making the default choice whilst in a vote not-chosing is leaving the choice to all other voters.
The use of this though experiment as a metaphor for the choice facing individual American voters is downright deceitful and propagandistic, self-servingly so since it's being used to try and boost the chances of one side.
As Jeff Bridges said in the newer TRON movie
It's CLU's game now, the only way to win is not to play
But he was wrong, as his inaction would have caused him to lose
Yeah, that's why there's all the variations of pushing an extremely large person in front of the train to stop it, and things like that. The lever, obviously it's a choice that you should make. The person, it's still a choice, but at what point is it not an issue you should try to handle.
Voting is a lever. There's other actions that are more akin to pushing someone onto the tracks.
People just selfishly want to believe they don’t share responsibility if they just let things happen “naturally”
Elections are a weak tool for individuals to shape policy at the national level. Observing that your Congresscritters are blind and deaf to your solicitations, that gerrymandering and voter caging renders your vote almost meaningless, and that policy - particularly foreign policy - seems to be shaped by DC mega-donors and lobbyists and think tanks more than any recently elected officials doesn't make you selfish. That's absurd.
And when you look at the miserable job guys like Eric Adams or Henry Cuellar or Richie Torres or Joe Manchin have done during their time in office, you begin to question the wisdom of this "Vote Blue No Matter Who" shit.
Those of us who don’t vote know this. We’re counting on it.
The machine is going to keep on killing people overseas and persecuting minorities. But the system is based on consent. If Harris wins she will claim that the voters have endorsed her and all her policies, even if we held our nose and voted for in spite of those policies. Same with Trump, who tried to take away his supporters’ healthcare and was surprised that there was a backlash since his campaign was claiming the people had spoken and he had a mandate.
A big enough group of third party and non voters shows the flaw of these parties. If they want me to support them, then work with me, pander to me dammit. Expecting my vote when you promise absolutely nothing for my community is a common Democratic trait; look at how little some Democratic politicians did for the black community and their retort was “where else are you gonna go?” They’re doing it again for black Americans and Muslim Americans. Harris won’t even be seen with those voters but she found time to hug Liz Cheney and invite her into the big tent. Harris says Black Lives Matter, she says Trans lives matter, she says Israeli lives matter, she won’t say that Arab lives matter equal to Israeli ones. Why shouldn’t I vote for Stein, who DOES say this? Harris made a choice to back every one of Biden’s failed policies and made a calculated decision that she can win the election without me. Hillary thought the same, and hoped that by throwing Muslim-Americans under the bus she could maybe get a few republicans to change to her side. It failed, and it will fail again.
Edit: ah yes, downvote me all you want but I’ve been speaking to voters in swing states and you’re only lying to yourself if you can’t address this issue for them. Harris can’t even bring herself to say the most basic talking points in support of Palestinian rights. Just say you plan to make a committee to look into how to build a future Palestinian state or that looking back it was wrong for Biden to deny the Palestinian death count, and that would address a lot of concerns, but it’s like she’s intentionally making it harder for Arabs and Muslims to vote for her.
Add disabled people to this list, homeless people, just so many of us who would suffer under a facist.
There isn't enough space in the frame for the flags that represent all of the people who get stomped on by fascism.
Pretty sure the homeless one should be on both ends of the track
I'd actually say not really, democratic proposals for urbanism would significantly help ð unhoused even on ð more NIMBY end of ð spectrum.
homeless people need a flag
Actually, they need a home. Common misconception. Flags are indeed not homes.
Pretty sure they need houses
But for comical effect I found this https://www.walmart.com/ip/Homelessness-Awareness-Month-USA-Flag-T-Shirt/5628172427
In the early days of the IWW, many of the Wobblies were hobos. So maybe you could say that the IWW cat is a homeless icon.
My favorite one is missing! Political Dissidents AND party members deemed a nuisance!
For this to be correct the"moral high" track should go to before the junction since it's literally a choice of leaving the decision to others.
In this specific case were what's portrayed is the lever in the hands of each individual person amongst over 200 millions voters (rather than, say, the choice in the hands of people like Biden, who pretty much has an individual Genocide/No-Genocide choice), it's not Logical to portray the choice of sticking with one's moral principles as a choice for either side since there are still millions of other people needed for the choice to be made - in fact it's downright deceitful and self-serving propaganda to misportray what's literally a "I refrain from chosing hence leave the choice to the rest" as a being the same as a choice for one of the options.
The whole use of this format were an individual is represented as being alone in making a choice when the actual situation is "one vote amongst hundreds of millions" is downright deceitful and self-serving propaganda.
I saw this exact one with someone on the bottom that said "I refuse to participate in a broken system" on r/PeterExplainsTheJoke and NOBODY understood it.
It's one national government, Micheal! What could it cost to derail, 10 lives?
There’s always rubles in the borscht stand.
"Elon Musk isn't just some no good immigrant, he's my no good immigrant"
Edit: I don't give a shit how many down votes I get. I'm correct! Vote blue! And show Palestinian, Arab, and all marginalized demographics you/we are not going to abandon them for self preservation. Show more empathy via doing everything within your capacity to help those around you. There are marginalized people around you. Do more. Be better. We all will be put in the tracks as the individual and we all hope others won't boil down your life to a binary train track meme.
I'm going to be 100% with yall that comment and post this shit.
Before I go on, let me say I voted dem and know they would be better for the world over Trump.
But is that's the standard and argument you expect people to vote for, you are in for a rude awakening... To anyone reading this or agreeing with these outright insulting comments and posts about how you know better need to take a long look in the mirror. Because...
If the only support you are giving to the Palestinian and Arab people is voting Dem and having arguments about lesser evils, then you are not helping the situation.
Yes vote dem. But get off your ass and protest, donate, and support those communities currently harmed be democrats disastrous Gaza and Middle East policy. That's how you sway hearts and minds. These fucking backhanded, self serving, ignorant posts and comments won't stop anything but prove to those communities that the democrats base does not give a shit about anything that doesn't directly effect themselves.
Yall are missing the forest from the trees. Not voting for the light genicidal party nor the full genicidal party isn't some gotcha win for Trump. It's a failure on our part to demand our party doesn't continue using our votes to do harm.
call your senators daily and demand they publicly denounce Israel and the IDF. Donate money to organizations that are saving lives destroyed by our bombs. March with your fellow Palestinian and Arab brothers and sisters. Divest and boycott any business with ties to Isreal and the IDF.
We should be on the tracks trying to destroy them not worrying about who we are sending the train towards. We're better than this. This is just conservative tactics used on a population that we need to vote blue! We are better than this! show some empathy and get involved. I have Palestinian friends and they would spit in your face if you said this kind of shit to their face because it's removing the humanity of the 40k people killed by Isreal via bombs provided by Biden/Harris. If you/we don't care why should they?
If the only support you are giving to the Palestinian and Arab people is voting Dem and having arguments about lesser evils, then you are not helping the situation.
I would flip this back on those who suddenly, despite decades of oppression, really care about Palestinians... Show me one thing that any of those people have done the further that goal.
If the only support you are giving to the Palestinian and Arab people is voting Dem and having arguments about lesser evils, then you are not helping the situation.
Jesus fucking Christ man, is it really so ridiculous to believe that a week before the election the current concern is voting Dem considering that is the upcoming issue with a hard and irreversible cutoff?
Many of us are involved in politics outside of voting. I write my congresscritters regularly, usually on matters of foreign affairs, for all the good it does. I donate when I can.
But right now a considerable number of people are banging the "DON'T VOTE BOTH SIDES THE SAME" drum when there is a very good chance of a literal fucking fascist being elected, the issue of "These votes are NOT fucking equivalent" is pretty fucking important to bring attention to, and bringing it to attention with asspats and "I understand if you don't want to stop any further genocides happening, but..." is the kind of feckless, useless civility politics bullshite I'm constantly criticizing the Dems for, so you can be sure as shit I'm not cutting anyone else slack for that approach.
Ya exactly. Where the fuck have yall been? I'm not trying to be pedantic or insulting but we that actually cares have been fighting for a long time to actually help! And yes they're are things outside of our control but we should never fucking stop trying to stop the train. You (those that haven't done anything to in your personal life to oppose fucking genicide outside of commenting and posting) are the reason why Palestinian and Arab Americans will stay home on election day. We need their vote! So get involved! Regardless of how the election ends we need to come together as a unified community and not individuals that act as if the Palestinians are already dead regardless of our collective actions! I'm guessing there are enough more marginalized demographics between you (not you specifically) and the next set of binary track decisions. If they (the rich and powerful) can do it to the Palestinian people they'll do it to you. And when they do come for you I pray others don't wait until a week before elections when they start posting train track memes as that's a point that should be made.
Get involved. Show communities that are currently on the chopping block you'll never stop trying to save their lives regardless as how close the train is. Get involved! Voting is the absolute least you can do, but you can do more! This post and comment won't sway a fucking election but us unifying and help those in need as much as possible will!
I'm done. Yall be acting like I'm the one being crazy when I'm saying no one has to be on the tracks of more keyboard warriors actually did something for others. Get involved!
END
Many of us are involved in politics outside of voting. I write my congresscritters regularly, usually on matters of foreign affairs, for all the good it does. I donate when I can.
I hate to be a bad news bear, but calling and writing congress does effectively nothing. When it comes to actual policy (and not empty lip service), politicians only serve donors and lobbyists.
If we want real change then we will need to replace our broken and corrupt two party system with a modern multiparty democracy
I'm voting Democrat to preserve some semblance of democracy in this country, but I have to say I'm quite disappointed in my congress critters. My senator in particular. I've emailed her frequently, including links to articles detailing the crimes against humanity committed by the IDF, and all I get is a form letter response about how "Israel's right to defend itself is so important" and "October 7th was terrible" and maybe a line about how horrible it is that Palestinians are suffering written in a way that either only blames Hamas or uses the most passive voice I have ever seen in writing.
Exactly. And that does not mean our job is done. Please keep writing and advocating. If more people do this we can save lives. Not only if those that we can see. It's about fighting for the best of humanity opposed to the race to the bottom. Vote blue, get involved, fuck the IDF, divest and boycott.
call your senators daily and demand they publicly denounce Israel and the IDF
Honestly, do YOU do that? Daily?
What has been your success rate in getting your senator on the line?
You must be on a first name basis by now.Uhhhhhh what? Are you being purposely dumb? Of course when I say call your senators, I'm not saying get them on the actual fucking line! Call his office/voice mail and make the comment... And don't just comment one thing comment about all the communities currently being tied up on the tracks. And if you don't want to do that have you donated to charities helping in marginalized communities local or abroad? How about volunteering? How about protesting? Whatever is in your capacity you should be doing it!
Maybe they haven't and are just pointing it out. Few do, and that's the problem. It's not democracy, it's representative democracy, but it only works like a democracy would if people hold their reps accountable.
So no, the ones suggesting to hold their reps to the fire, now and after the election, probably haven't themselves. But they aren't wrong, and it shouldn't be thrown back in their face but instead embraced as a good idea to start now.
Otherwise nothing changes, because other factors already contact our reps daily and influence them, that's why they vote the way they do.
Agreed but the chance those tracks will be destroyed before the election is slim.
I applaud your call to activism but in reality much less people will ever commit to fighting for their ideals that way.
Many more people will however are willing to give a token to a “right cause”
Voting D is that token. It doesn't fix shit, especially considering the genocide but it will be a slower decline of human rights then the alternative.
More time to do activism.
There are many others, also on lemmy that are not calling for activism but for a token of not voting. I think the meme is a representation of that particular logic.
Everything you said is correct. I just don't want to see all the surprised Pikachu when their inaction and self-righteousness results in a Trump victory. They'll cry, "why didn't the Palestinian and Arab Americans show up for the democrats?!"
The train hasn't hit yet there are still millions of lives we can save by doing more than just voting. If we're not willing to do everything to save them, why should they do anything to save us? I don't care how close the train is. I'll be trying to destroy the tracks until it hits me and the persons tied to the tracks. That's my point.
These memes boil an unbelievably complex issue to a binary outcome. Marginalized communities are going to be there regardless of the outcome of the elections. Don't wait until the train is about to hit you or something you care about before you decide to start dismantling the tracks. Then see how you feel when someone presumes your inevitable cleansing. I honestly feel like I'm living in Bizarro world or something. Like is what I'm saying beyond our capacity? We are doomed if we won't all step on the tracks to stop the trains.
Voting D is that token. It doesn't fix shit, especially considering the genocide but it will be a slower decline of human rights then the alternative.
by any logic it accelerates the decline. it gives a clear signal that they can get away with anything as long as they can project a worse alternative.
THANK YOU!
Our community is suffering, and the only solution people are offering are to yell at us and shame us for not finding this situation unlivable. “Your community will keep dying in either administration but could you vote for the pro-trans politician while you’re suffering?”
Mehdi Hasan was the only person who was able to reach out and connect to those voters with his recent video, and he did so with sympathy and understanding. He convinced me to vote and did so without bullying or calling me names.
So, the colorful left is just killing everyone and everything but with extra steps and the illusion of doing the right thing. Sounds about right.
So the bland right is just drawing memes and basing their entire world-view off them.sounds about right
The liberals claiming to be different from the far-right muppets whilst engaging in the same kind of simpleton take on politics would be hilarious if the results of them having been propaganda muppets for decades weren't so bad for everybody (by moving the center of American politics so far to the Right that it now sits on what is considered Far Right in World political terms).
The only upside of this shit is that by now pretty much nobody outside the US looks to it for references on Politics - even the Far-Right in Europe stays away from lots of American quirks like hyper-religiosity.
Reposting my comment from the other thread because I was specifically asked to elaborate by @[email protected] but the thread got locked:
Previous comment
Honestly, I wonder how much of our disagreements do ultimately come down to moral philosophy. I see a lot of people making this comparison and I’d be happy to put aside the present political situation and step back to discuss a higher level of disagreement.
I am a consequentialist, and I would agree, in principle, that the correct decision in the trolley problem is to pull the lever. But that should always come with an extreme amount of disclaimers. There are no shortage of people throughout history who have made justifications for their actions on the basis of “the ends justify the means,” but often, they turned out to be wrong. To use an example, torture under the Bush administration was claimed to be justified on the basis of getting useful intelligence in order to save lives. But no such intelligence was ever extracted. Really, it was more motivated by revenge, or a desire to be the sort of cool antihero who does the stuff nobody else will that needs to be done, but “the ends justify the means” served as a rationalization. Another example like that (though perhaps more controversial) is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The problem with applying the trolley problem to real life is that we are mere human beings of flesh and blood. We have a whole host of cognitive biases that mislead us even when we have the best of intentions. If we give our minds a way to justify things that we know are bad, it gives it an out that allows us to rationalize the irrational and justify the unjustifiable.
There are two practices that are necessary to apply in order to counteract these biases. First, it is necessary to adopt a set of strong moral guidelines based on past experience and historical evidence. Second, it is necessary to regularly practice some form of introspection or meditation in order to better understand where your thoughts and feelings arise from, and how they flow through your mind. Said guidelines do not have to be rigorously adhered to 100% of the time, but they should be respected, and only deviated from after clear, careful consideration, understanding why the guideline exists and why deviation from them is almost always bad.
“Base” consequentialism, where you recognize that pulling the lever in the trolley problem is the correct decision, but simply accept that as a guiding principle, is a terrible moral philosophy, worse than deontology and possibly worse than having completely unexamined moral views. Some of the worst atrocities in history are the result of that sort of “ends justify the means” approach, detached from a set of moral guidelines and detached from humility and self-reflection. I would even say, speaking as a communist, that many of the bad things communists have done in history are a result of that kind of mentality. Following moral rules blindly is preferable to breaking moral rules without first doing the necessary work to be trusted with breaking them.
There’s plenty more I could say on the topic but people always complain about my long posts so I’d better cut myself off there.
Elaboration:
The trolley problem isn't intended to demonstrate that consequentialism is simply correct, as some people seem to think. Rather, it's meant to highlight disagreements between different moral philosophies and present contradictions in our moral intuitions. There are two follow ups to the classic trolley problem: one involves pushing someone off a bridge to stop the trolley, and the other involves a doctor killing a healthy patient in order to harvest their organs to save the lives of five people who need transplants. While a majority of people agree with pulling the lever in the original problem, most people disagree with pushing the man off a bridge, and virtually no one agrees with harvesting organs from a healthy patient. This reveals an apparent contradiction in our moral intuitions. To adopt the principal that it is right to kill one to save five very quickly leads to conclusions that are widely condemned as morally abhorrent, and so a deeper examination is needed. Like most things in philosophy, the trolley problem is meant to raise questions, not answer them.
The deontological answer is to say that consequentialism is simply wrong, because it leads to those sorts of conclusions, but in my view this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The reason our moral intuitions scream at us not to push the man off the bridge or harvest organs is that these hypotheticals have unrealistic constraints and foreknowledge. In real life, it's extremely unlikely that a trolley with enough force to run over 5 people would be stopped by one person, and it's also not something we could possibly calculate with any degree of certainty ahead of time. Our physical intuitions get mixed up with our moral intuitions, and it's difficult to actually accept the constraints of the hypothetical. The organ harvesting example is even worse. If the crime was ever revealed to the public, it would cause major damage to the reputation of the entire medical field, which would cause people to avoid potentially lifesaving treatments, and the doctor doing it would lose their license preventing them from saving who knows how many lives. Meanwhile, surgeries carry inherent risks and it is impossible to know with the certainty assumed by the problem that they will be successful, and there's also the possibility that the other patients could miraculously recover. Moreover, the problem of not having enough organs could be addressed on a larger scale through policy without resorting to murder. The problem asks us to assume that every possible alternative is arbitrarily cut off and that we are 100% guaranteed to get away with it - which our brains rebel against, for very good reason. Many people commit crimes feeling certain that they'll get away with it, but then get caught, and immediate, short term solutions often seem appealing, even when they might have very negative long term consequences or when a more cautious, long term approach might be wiser.
It might seem that I'm simply rejecting the validity of those hypotheticals altogether, and to an extent I am, but this analysis reveals something important. People often fail to consider all these different factors that might make a situation not as simple as the original trolley problem, even when they appear to be. That is the danger of "base" consequentialism, of applying the principle of "the ends justify the means" blindly and without due consideration of alternative solutions or of consequences that are not immediately apparent. It is generally very foolish to reduce things to the trolley problem when they are more complicated, and people who reduce the election to a trolley problem are making the exact same kind of error as people who reduce the organ harvesting thought experiment to a trolley problem.
I'll use a hypothetical of my own to further illustrate my point. Suppose you and four other people have been taken hostage, and the hostage taker tells you to kill one of the other hostages, or else he'll kill all of them including you. Is this a trolley problem? It might appear to be, but the reality is that introducing a human actor instead of a purely mechanical process changes everything. What happens if, after you kill a hostage, the gunman says, "Great! From now on, you work for me. You will kill anyone I say to kill. And if you refuse, I'll kill twice as many people. My first order is for you to capture more hostages so I can repeat this and recruit another person just like you." Isn't that obviously indefensible? It would be completely justified for someone to kill you to stop you from doing that. But this is exactly where the ideology of lesser-evilism leads. We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated like machines into strengthening the very people who put us into the situation in the first place.
I make a point every time I refer to lesser-evilism to call it an ideology, because that's what it is, even though it's adherents do not recognize it as such and simply call it obvious, objective, and rational. It is none of those things. It is important to recognize that this is a specific belief system, and one that frequently leads to absurd and abhorrent conclusions, and that many people reject, including many academics and philosophers.
"Rehashing a discussion from a locked post?" Seriously?? Then remove OP's whole post! @[email protected] I want an explanation.
I live in a deep red state. Not a swing state. Not a questionable state. A state where registered red voters outnumber blue voters 2-1.
I'm not saying that this applies to everyone but even if blue had an excellent turnout including me and reds had a bad turnout, it would still be a red win with a ratio 3-2.
I'm not voting not because I don't care, not because I don't think it's the right thing to do, not for some moral high ground, but because it actually doesn't matter. I am disenfranchised, I accept it, I make the best decisions I can knowing that.
I'm sure some will still tell me I'm wrong but I'm going to focus on my own interests and mental health.
If you are in a swing state, please vote. If not for yourself, for me. I'll consider it a favor.
(I have good reasons for living here. If you tell me I should move then why don't you move to a swing state?)
You are quite dug in on the presidential election, but do keep in mind you are usually also voting for local/county positions on that same ballot, where one vote often makes the difference and has a more immediate impact on your interests
My state was red until it was purple. If all the potential blue voters in your state took the time to vote instead of just assuming it was futile, you might find out that your state could actually be purple too.
Fucking thank you. Some of us are old enough to remember when Texas was "solid red with no chance of ever switching" and yet the past several elections have told a different story.
Just go vote dude. It takes you five minutes, you probably already know who you'd vote for regardless. You literally have nothing to lose
It's still worth voting for those down-ballot items. I'm in a very blue area of a swing state and we currently have some local ballot proposals that are so poorly written they'll get the city mired in lawsuits for years to come.
Just a short question:
So you don't vote because it doesn't matter - but is it just to save a few minutes that you would rather spend on something else?
If it was me, I would always want to exercise my democratic powers (it might be the last time, hehe), but perhaps I am also not too bothered about wasting my time.
I like this, talking about your mental health. Whatever that means for many others, it's just about you.
Honestly your mental health will be alot worse off if you're part of the problem. Just vote.
I'm not an American (thank fuck) but I don't see any reason why I'd help red. At all. It's blue all the way since at least Kamala has some sense in her.
Ask yourself, why does everyone care about Palestinians so badly, do you even know any to begin with?
I am al for ending suffering but it seems the focus about what it's really about is lost in the elections...
Ask yourself, why does everyone care about Palestinians so badly, do you even know any to begin with?
Why should people speak out when they come for communists, when they're not communists?
Why should people speak out when they come for socialists, when they're not socialists?
Why should people speak out when they come for trade unionists, when they're not trade unionists?
Why should people speak out when they come for Jews, when they're not Jewish?
Why should people speak out when they come for Palestinians, when they're not Palestinian?
Because if you don't speak out for them, there will be no one left to speak out for you.
Amrikani Falesteini here,
If you þink letting Donald Trump back into office is a reasonable answer to democratic leniency on Israeli war crimes after he handed Bibi West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights, and is right now actively encouraging Bibi to keep going in mimic of Nixon and Reagan before him, you are eiðer a knowing zionist agent, or an unwitting one, and eiðer way you need to quit bitching, sit ð fuck down, and do your share of solidarity ðis november if you want to keep using my people's bodies as your set dressing for your white people savior shit.
Amrikani Falesteini
How do you feel living in a safe first world country that is selling bombs to blow your brothers? Just asking
Just nuke the planet cuz humans suck regardless
Magneto was right!
I feel at this point the majority of content on this sub is not funny or a meme anymore. While I don't agree with Trump at this point Lemmy is becoming "astroturfed" like reddit
Oh, I agree that it has been astroturfed. Anyone who's been on this site longer than a few months can tell you that.
Except it's not memes like this that are being pushed. In fact, this meme is a direct response to the massive influx of propaganda that this site has seen in the past couple of months.
Sub? Really? You know this isn’t Reddit, right? And it’s called: Political Memes. Not SuperHappyFunnyHaHaMemes. Want funny? maybe go to a “sub” that hosts funny memes. I dunno. Just a thought.
This is, objectively, a political meme. Humor is not requisite.
This happens every election cycle the closer election day comes. Is it really any surprise political advocacy is higher during political season?
And what makes this "astroturfed"?
Every single time I open Lemmy I see at least 5 posts about " voting third party bad" it is not much different from reddit during the 2016/2020 campaign. How it is run now I wouldnt know because I havent browsed reddit since 2023.
Even political Memes are generally lighthearted and people dont fight as much in the comments compared to reddit.
American elections bring out the worst in everyone everywhere.
No shit, my friends in lebannon getting bombed and some idiots first worldist privileged yank are drawing memes with palestinians tied to a track.
Alternatively: "I'm voting for Diet Fascism and if you don't vote for Diet Fascism too, you're voting for Full-Fat Fascism" but said with the sternest voice the weakest losers can muster.
More "I'm voting for diet fascism and if you don't vote you're complicit in anything that comes, which will either be diet fascism or full-fast fascism. Not voting doesn't prevent either of these, and one is obviously preferably. No action is still a choice you're making."
Preferable for you.
I just want a candidate that supports both universal healthcare and the 2nd amendment.
Quick, somebody get this guy on the ballot!
Considering everyone is talking about fascists coming to power and life getting more threatening, it would make some sense for the groups in the photo to look into being armed.
I'll be honest, I'm not planning to vote. Though if I did, it would most certainly not be for the orange man.
-
I don't care to sign up for potential jury duty some random day.
-
I do not care to vote for anyone with religious motivations.
-
I don't care to vote for anyone with their head stuck in other countries' business.
-
I'd much rather vote for someone that actually has our country first and foremost.
-
Honestly I feel ashamed to even be born in a country that hocks weapons like candy.
I could go on, but when I feel the election is like choosing between the lesser of two evils, then I choose not to vote for either evil.
Too bad there isn't a clear better candidate in the lead.
Not voting means you're fine if either of the two major candidates win. Inaction is also a choice with consequences that can have decades of impact.
What about your local stuff? You can vote and just not pick a President choice. Although #1 still applies, I guess.
Not having Jury Duty is like, the least important thing when it comes to voting. Usually they pay you for your time, and hell, sometimes you show up and they either strike you from the pool or don't have cases left for the day, and send you home soon after you arrive. I had jury duty earlier this year, got taken out of the jury pool, and I still got paid for my time.
He said he was voting in 2016, so he is in jury duty list already and this argument is pointless.
Any of you don't want to be on jury duty just saying you don't wish to do it can be enough to be removed fron the jury pool (alternatively seeming way too interested could also be a tactic)
They pay you. Not very much though. If you're living paycheck to paycheck it's a financial hit.
Ah the bridge option. Nice job "not choosing"
Last time I went to vote, it was for the 2016 election. And you better bet your ass I wasn't gonna vote for the orange man then either.
I spent 3 hours in line, only for them to close the voting library with around 200 people ahead of me still waiting to vote. Biggest waste of my time ever.
And no, our state does not allow early voting.
-
It should be giving the choice to a Nazi.
In one image, show us you don't understand the philosophical problem.
When people are insisting that "Doing nothing is choosing NEITHER track!", sometimes a less subtle approach is needed.
The meme is implying complicity with genocide is unavoidable and I hope one day you will see the consequences of your action.
The philosophical problem is more a game theory one. You are participating in a limited outcome, constrained system. Depending on where you live, non participation results in a trump win.
I wasn't trying to make the US election into a philosophical problem, because Trump winning will have serious global consequences, regardless of how immoral voting for Democrats might be.
The 'philosophical problem' with tankies trading people's lives to teach a politician a lesson?
Wow what a great sense of morality you have.
db0 is referring to the fact that the trolley problem is about inaction.
The philosophical problem of the trolley problem itself, but don't let me stop you from moralizing in advance.
The meme hasn't been about the philosophical problem in a long time.
Suck it up, Palestine, you'd be fucked anyway
This different then the argument, "suck it up Americans your fucked either way."?
You have to be a troll?
Kinda the only way to support my family, sir
from Wikipedia
Reversing the points under a moving train will almost always derail the train.
Cool, so, inside that trolley are also all the issues listed there who will die if it's derailed, because anyone who thinks that a revolution will be communist led and bloodless hasn't spent more than ten minutes in this fucking country.
Sorry you want a revolution without doing the hard work of actually establishing the popular basis for one.
How does one do that in this metaphor? Vote for one by mail and the other in person? That just lands you in jail and is functionally equivalent to sending the train down the "moral high ground" track.
popular vote goes to Harris but Trump gets inaugurated because the supreme court ruled otherwise?