I haven’t seen anyone on lemmy actually claim that, and I certainly wouldn’t. But who is leading you right now is making all those things actively worse. Not a single palestinian has been saved because you’re willing to let some other people suffer instead, now we’re just all going to suffer.
Personally I think there’s a clear difference between “I let 10 people die” and “I let 100 people die”, and since in your country’s shitty voting system inaction or third parties is practically the same as choosing the latter, well… To change your system it has to start from the root level which you clearly know better than I do. But when election is ongoing - the bus is already running, you have only two choices. And now the bus is going off the cliff
I strongly disagree with the claim that voting third party or not voting is “the same as voting for Trump.” By that logic, it’s also the same as voting for Harris. It’s complete and total nonsense.
The fact that this question is taking place within the medium of electoralism does not fundamentally change what the question is, asking me to vote for a genocidaire is no different than asking me to commit genocide with my own hands. There have been countless times in history where someone said that it was ok to do genocide for the sake of some kind of greater good, or protecting some other group of people or whatever else. Every one of those times, we look back and say that they were wrong. There has never once in history where committing genocide has been the morally correct choice, nor has there ever been a group of people that we can look back and say, “If only they were less reluctant to engage in genocide, everything would’ve turned out better.”
If I go down as one of the people who was too reluctant to use genocide in order to advance their own interests, I’m not going to be particularly bothered by that.
I agree with opposing genocide, I really do. But you have not opposed genocide at all; you have opened the door to even more genocide just to keep your own moral purity. Genocide is still going in Palestine, it’s going on in Ukraine, it’s going on in tons of places all around the world right now. And if NATO falters, it is going to happen in other places in Europe too since that’s what Russian imperialism causes, in Taiwan if China attacks there, and probably somewhere close India too, if they use the chance to get at it with Pakistan again.
In an ideal world there’s always the golden perfect moral choice, where nobody suffers, but we don’t have that. You seem think you’ve had that perfect choice, but it has not affected the world in a positive way at all, it has just allowed the evil to cause more harm. That is not a morally good choice
I don’t have the power to fix every problem in the world. What I do have the power to do is to ensure that I do not become a problem that needs to be fixed, myself.
I genuinely can’t comprehend your perspective at all. You said you were “baffled” that people didn’t agree with your position, when your position is that supporting genocide is not merely morally permissible, but morally obligatory. I struggle to even imagine a contrived hypothetical scenario where that would be a defensible position, much less one where it would be obvious that genocide is morally obligatory. It’s absurd.
What you are failing to understand is, that this was the most realistic version of the trolley problem you could encounter; there was no option you could take, that wouldn’t have supported real world genocide; someone would have always died under the trolley. The three basic options available all lead to genocide; by choosing democrats you supported some real world genocide and ideologically genocide, by choosing republicans you supported even worse genocide in the real world and ideologically. By choosing neither, you didn’t ideologically support genocide, but you supported the actual worse genocide option in the real world.
You chose what you perceived as morally righteous by deciding not to ideologically support genocide, but by choosing that, you enabled real world consequences resulting in more actual genocide than what would have happened if you chose otherwise.
Also, quite ironically, philosophy was my second major in university, so maybe you should take that class instead. Lol
If you have a major in philosophy, then surely you’re aware that there are plenty of moral systems that argue against pulling the lever in the trolley problem, and the many critiques of it that exist. Surely you couldn’t have spent years studying philosophy and walked away with the conclusion, “Act Utilitarianism is obviously objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees must be too stupid to understand it.”
The thing is; those moral systems and critiques of the problem are all ideological. We can argue about what’s good and what’s evil as much as we want, but in the real world people just suffer and die. We don’t have to and likely even can’t reach some consensus, but we can at least reach an understanding of what we both are trying to say, yes?
You value moral purity, and that is indeed a valid moral stance. But in the real world that has lead to valuing personal moral purity over human lives; that means more people will die, which in turn is what I consider a lot worse both in ideological sense and in the real world. Thus leading to this discussion
The thing is; those moral systems and critiques of the problem are all ideological.
You are making me seriously reconsider my impression of Finland’s educational system.
Every hotshot freshman walks into Philosophy 101 thinking that everybody else’s ideas are “ideological” while theirs are just “common sense” (nevermind that they all believe different things). If the professor does their job properly, and the students aren’t completely obstinate, then they will leave Philosophy 101 understanding that this is not a valid way of understanding anything.
Anyone who claims that everyone else is operating based on ideology and they are not, is simply unaware of their own ideology. And being unaware of it, that ideology has a far greater hold on them than it otherwise might.
The Trolley Problem isn’t even meant to have a definite answer. The thought experiment was developed for the explicit purpose of demonstrating how people’s moral intuitions differ, as do different schools of moral philosophy. To think, “Pulling the level is obviously objectively correct, and this is a non-ideological claim” is completely and utterly absurd and demonstrates total ignorance of moral philosophy.
What do you think the point of philosophy even is if all it’s theories can be dismissed as “ideological” and your own personal “common sense” is a reliable way of determining truth?
Of course even my take is ideological - as I said, they’re all ideological. This whole argument is not stemming from metaphysics, it’s that you clearly value the ideological level, while I care more about the practical results. As I wrote earlier, I don’t even disagree with your takes on genocide or anything, they’re all reasonable and logical moral stances, very ethical even.
The difference is you’re thinking that those ideas are what matters, while I’m valuing them as less than the physical reality of things. Actual, living humans (well, nature in general) are what I think we should consider foremost when making decisions - which, obviously, is a moral stance as well. But it is a moral stance our societies tend to be build on; as when they’re not… we get to the genocides and wars
I haven’t seen anyone on lemmy actually claim that, and I certainly wouldn’t. But who is leading you right now is making all those things actively worse. Not a single palestinian has been saved because you’re willing to let some other people suffer instead, now we’re just all going to suffer.
Personally I think there’s a clear difference between “I let 10 people die” and “I let 100 people die”, and since in your country’s shitty voting system inaction or third parties is practically the same as choosing the latter, well… To change your system it has to start from the root level which you clearly know better than I do. But when election is ongoing - the bus is already running, you have only two choices. And now the bus is going off the cliff
I strongly disagree with the claim that voting third party or not voting is “the same as voting for Trump.” By that logic, it’s also the same as voting for Harris. It’s complete and total nonsense.
The fact that this question is taking place within the medium of electoralism does not fundamentally change what the question is, asking me to vote for a genocidaire is no different than asking me to commit genocide with my own hands. There have been countless times in history where someone said that it was ok to do genocide for the sake of some kind of greater good, or protecting some other group of people or whatever else. Every one of those times, we look back and say that they were wrong. There has never once in history where committing genocide has been the morally correct choice, nor has there ever been a group of people that we can look back and say, “If only they were less reluctant to engage in genocide, everything would’ve turned out better.”
If I go down as one of the people who was too reluctant to use genocide in order to advance their own interests, I’m not going to be particularly bothered by that.
I agree with opposing genocide, I really do. But you have not opposed genocide at all; you have opened the door to even more genocide just to keep your own moral purity. Genocide is still going in Palestine, it’s going on in Ukraine, it’s going on in tons of places all around the world right now. And if NATO falters, it is going to happen in other places in Europe too since that’s what Russian imperialism causes, in Taiwan if China attacks there, and probably somewhere close India too, if they use the chance to get at it with Pakistan again.
In an ideal world there’s always the golden perfect moral choice, where nobody suffers, but we don’t have that. You seem think you’ve had that perfect choice, but it has not affected the world in a positive way at all, it has just allowed the evil to cause more harm. That is not a morally good choice
I don’t have the power to fix every problem in the world. What I do have the power to do is to ensure that I do not become a problem that needs to be fixed, myself.
I genuinely can’t comprehend your perspective at all. You said you were “baffled” that people didn’t agree with your position, when your position is that supporting genocide is not merely morally permissible, but morally obligatory. I struggle to even imagine a contrived hypothetical scenario where that would be a defensible position, much less one where it would be obvious that genocide is morally obligatory. It’s absurd.
Maybe take a philosophy class sometime.
What you are failing to understand is, that this was the most realistic version of the trolley problem you could encounter; there was no option you could take, that wouldn’t have supported real world genocide; someone would have always died under the trolley. The three basic options available all lead to genocide; by choosing democrats you supported some real world genocide and ideologically genocide, by choosing republicans you supported even worse genocide in the real world and ideologically. By choosing neither, you didn’t ideologically support genocide, but you supported the actual worse genocide option in the real world.
You chose what you perceived as morally righteous by deciding not to ideologically support genocide, but by choosing that, you enabled real world consequences resulting in more actual genocide than what would have happened if you chose otherwise.
Also, quite ironically, philosophy was my second major in university, so maybe you should take that class instead. Lol
If you have a major in philosophy, then surely you’re aware that there are plenty of moral systems that argue against pulling the lever in the trolley problem, and the many critiques of it that exist. Surely you couldn’t have spent years studying philosophy and walked away with the conclusion, “Act Utilitarianism is obviously objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees must be too stupid to understand it.”
The thing is; those moral systems and critiques of the problem are all ideological. We can argue about what’s good and what’s evil as much as we want, but in the real world people just suffer and die. We don’t have to and likely even can’t reach some consensus, but we can at least reach an understanding of what we both are trying to say, yes?
You value moral purity, and that is indeed a valid moral stance. But in the real world that has lead to valuing personal moral purity over human lives; that means more people will die, which in turn is what I consider a lot worse both in ideological sense and in the real world. Thus leading to this discussion
You are making me seriously reconsider my impression of Finland’s educational system.
Every hotshot freshman walks into Philosophy 101 thinking that everybody else’s ideas are “ideological” while theirs are just “common sense” (nevermind that they all believe different things). If the professor does their job properly, and the students aren’t completely obstinate, then they will leave Philosophy 101 understanding that this is not a valid way of understanding anything.
Anyone who claims that everyone else is operating based on ideology and they are not, is simply unaware of their own ideology. And being unaware of it, that ideology has a far greater hold on them than it otherwise might.
The Trolley Problem isn’t even meant to have a definite answer. The thought experiment was developed for the explicit purpose of demonstrating how people’s moral intuitions differ, as do different schools of moral philosophy. To think, “Pulling the level is obviously objectively correct, and this is a non-ideological claim” is completely and utterly absurd and demonstrates total ignorance of moral philosophy.
What do you think the point of philosophy even is if all it’s theories can be dismissed as “ideological” and your own personal “common sense” is a reliable way of determining truth?
Of course even my take is ideological - as I said, they’re all ideological. This whole argument is not stemming from metaphysics, it’s that you clearly value the ideological level, while I care more about the practical results. As I wrote earlier, I don’t even disagree with your takes on genocide or anything, they’re all reasonable and logical moral stances, very ethical even.
The difference is you’re thinking that those ideas are what matters, while I’m valuing them as less than the physical reality of things. Actual, living humans (well, nature in general) are what I think we should consider foremost when making decisions - which, obviously, is a moral stance as well. But it is a moral stance our societies tend to be build on; as when they’re not… we get to the genocides and wars