voting for the lesser evil will only serve to guarantee that you will forever be voting for the lesser evil and that you will reach the same evil that the alternative raced towards, but slower.
Thats really poetic but observe our choices in reality in relation to the systems we built to usher them in. You don't cut your parachute just because you're falling anyway.
My god, what a stupid take.
The lesser evil is by definition the better choice! If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, you are effectively choosing the greater evil. It does not get any stupider than that.
If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils,
you are choosing not to vote for evil.
you are choosing not to vote for evil.
And allowing the greater evil to win.
in the trolley scenario, i don't touch the lever. you can choose to be a murderer, but i won't.
In the trolley scenario, you chose to let 6 people die. Neither choice makes you a murderer. But one choice causes much more harm than the other.
flipping the switch makes you a murderer.
This is exactly the kind of situation the trolley problem was invented to illustrate... and I've never seen anyone fail at it so badly with such a weird take.
You'll allow the greater evil to happen because you don't want to have any part or any responsibility in helping a lesser evil happen. But you do have responsibility, because you do have a choice. In the trolley problem, f you never knew about the lever, you couldn't be asked to pull it or not. In the election problem, if you can't vote you have no responsibility. But the trolley problem states you know about the lever, and in the election scenario, you do have a vote. So you are involved no matter what. And that means you're just as guilty as the person who acted; only your action resulted in more deaths than the person who acted either way. Yours was the worst possible choice.
Try flipping the words from evil to good. The greater evil is worse, and the lesser evil is better. Therefore, you are choosing the worse scenario rather than the better one. It's ridiculously absurd.
The trolley problem is a litmus test for finding your ethical system. I've long tended toward deontology. More recently I'm looking at virtue ethics but I still at the moment identify as a deontologist. just because you let the trolley problem mislead you into some form of ontological ethics doesn't mean that you got the right answer. it means that it taught you about yourself.
I'm going to vote for who I want to win. I'm not going to vote for someone I think is evil to any degree.
If your method of voting is to choose the best person you can imagine, rather than someone who has an actual chance of winning, why vote for any candidate? Why not just write-in vote for Superman? Surely he is less evil than any candidate on the ballot.
Voting is like a game with rules. Sometime you simply can't win. But if you want the best outcome for the game you need to pick the strategy that leads to that outcome. Folding your arms and refusing to change your strategy when your preferred outcome has no chance of success ensures that the people actually playing the game will have it their way. Demanding nothing but the absolute best to earn your vote, and thus not voting for someone with a chance, is statistically identical to supporting the worse evil. It's sheer foolishness.
This kind of purity contest accomplishes nothing but shooting yourself in the foot. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
it's not a purity contest. I'm not going to vote for someone who I don't want to win.
voting for the lesser evil will only serve to guarantee that you will forever be voting for the lesser evil and that you will reach the same evil that the alternative raced towards, but slower.
Thats really poetic but observe our choices in reality in relation to the systems we built to usher them in. You don't cut your parachute just because you're falling anyway.
My god, what a stupid take.
The lesser evil is by definition the better choice! If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, you are effectively choosing the greater evil. It does not get any stupider than that.
you are choosing not to vote for evil.
And allowing the greater evil to win.
in the trolley scenario, i don't touch the lever. you can choose to be a murderer, but i won't.
In the trolley scenario, you chose to let 6 people die. Neither choice makes you a murderer. But one choice causes much more harm than the other.
flipping the switch makes you a murderer.
This is exactly the kind of situation the trolley problem was invented to illustrate... and I've never seen anyone fail at it so badly with such a weird take.
You'll allow the greater evil to happen because you don't want to have any part or any responsibility in helping a lesser evil happen. But you do have responsibility, because you do have a choice. In the trolley problem, f you never knew about the lever, you couldn't be asked to pull it or not. In the election problem, if you can't vote you have no responsibility. But the trolley problem states you know about the lever, and in the election scenario, you do have a vote. So you are involved no matter what. And that means you're just as guilty as the person who acted; only your action resulted in more deaths than the person who acted either way. Yours was the worst possible choice.
Try flipping the words from evil to good. The greater evil is worse, and the lesser evil is better. Therefore, you are choosing the worse scenario rather than the better one. It's ridiculously absurd.
The trolley problem is a litmus test for finding your ethical system. I've long tended toward deontology. More recently I'm looking at virtue ethics but I still at the moment identify as a deontologist. just because you let the trolley problem mislead you into some form of ontological ethics doesn't mean that you got the right answer. it means that it taught you about yourself.
I'm going to vote for who I want to win. I'm not going to vote for someone I think is evil to any degree.
If your method of voting is to choose the best person you can imagine, rather than someone who has an actual chance of winning, why vote for any candidate? Why not just write-in vote for Superman? Surely he is less evil than any candidate on the ballot.
Voting is like a game with rules. Sometime you simply can't win. But if you want the best outcome for the game you need to pick the strategy that leads to that outcome. Folding your arms and refusing to change your strategy when your preferred outcome has no chance of success ensures that the people actually playing the game will have it their way. Demanding nothing but the absolute best to earn your vote, and thus not voting for someone with a chance, is statistically identical to supporting the worse evil. It's sheer foolishness.
This kind of purity contest accomplishes nothing but shooting yourself in the foot. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
it's not a purity contest. I'm not going to vote for someone who I don't want to win.