849
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] capital@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

You’re pretty sanguine about getting the worse of the two. I find that strange.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

I don't subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism.

[-] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

This response says you subscribe to the ideology of worse-evilism for everybody else.

As a member of everybody else, THAAAAAANKS.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

Nope, not supporting the worse evil either.

Lesser-evilism freqently produces worse results than more coherent strategies and ethical systems.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

Explain the logic of “I’m good with the greater evil, actually”.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

Sure. Ethically speaking, anyone who's not an act utilitarian will accept the "greater evil" in some circumstances, and if you don't, it leads to some absurd conclusions, like chopping up a healthy person to get organ transplants to save five. Another example would be, "If you don't kill someone for me, I'll kill two people." I can't prevent every bad thing from happening, but I can control my own actions and choose not to be a party to bad things.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

Got it. Voting, in your mind, is akin to two different examples of murder.

It sounds to me like you’d opt out of giving someone the Heimlich maneuver so as not to bruise their abdomen, letting them choke to death.

I can control my own actions and choose not to be a party to bad things

You can pretend to opt out but not voting or voting third is a choice not to help prevent the worse outcome. You’ve participated in bringing that to fruition.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

I thought you were asking for why one would be accept a greater evil, generally speaking, so I demonstrated why lesser evilism is not automatically the correct position.

You’ve participated in bringing that to fruition.

Nope, that is blatantly false. Not voting for either major candidate, so by definition I haven't participated in getting either of them elected.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

Sure.

And a doctor who refuses to participate in the harm of removing a limb letting the person die from gangrene is “not participating” and not responsible for the outcome.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

Whether he's responsible is one thing, but claiming that the doctor participated in giving him gangrene would be completely absurd.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

No. You’ve incorrectly identified what I implied the doctor has participated in. You’d like for me to have said the doc somehow gave the person gangrene but I didn’t and did not imply that.

The doctor did however participate in letting a person die. He could have done otherwise but chose not to.

You see, removing a limb is a harm and he just can’t bring himself to do it. He will sleep soundly knowing he did no harm.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

You said that I participated in "Bringing that to fruition" not in "letting that happen."

"Participating in letting something happen" is a very odd turn of phrase. The definition of participate (per google) is, "take part in an action or endeavour." If what you're doing is not taking part in an action, then you aren't participating, by definition.

If someone on the other side of the world starves to death, are you a participant in that?

[-] capital@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

We’re comparing voting, which I can do, to helping someone I don’t know exists on the other side of the world?

Thanks for the thread bud. Plenty here for people to see your thought process. It sucks by the way.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

There's information about world hunger available on the web, I don't see how choosing not to be informed about it absolves you of responsibility.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

For more smug ethics lessons. Press 1 or say: “Bore me to death.”

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

know that there will still be an election, right? Not voting simply says you’re fine with either candidate winning. Which clearly shows your entitlement as you must not have much to worry about. It’s this, or you don’t even live in the states.

So pick one:

  1. You’re okay with either because you’re entitled and won’t suffer under either and don’t care at all about those that will. Or..
  2. You don’t live in America and therefore are here in bad faith to disrupt an election.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
849 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5391 readers
3024 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS