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.

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Are you willing to let four more people die just to avoid being a murderer? Do you assign to that label more moral value than you assign to human lives?

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        And you are overlooking the other 5 people, claiming that you are not complicit in their death even though you, as the one standing at the lever, are the only one able to save them. Your status as “non-murderer” is more important to you than their lives.

          • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  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@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          have you considered that “the end justify the means” is bad, actually, and that deontological ethics are the only way to actually be sure you are doing the right thing?

          • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is an acceptable position. “Even if you think murder is good in a specific case - don’t. Too many past murderers also tried to justify their acts. We humans are too good at self serving rationalization to be trusted with such things”

            The problem with this, is that you can’t drag that solution to the voting issue. It works for the trolley problem because it relies on the fact that murder is a big taboo. Voting isn’t a big taboo - you don’t have a long history of “voting is bad” consensus. That idea is new, and has to stand on its own merits.

                  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Let’s say Alice has a lead of one vote over Bob.

                    • If one Alice voter decided to vote for Bob instead - Bob will have a lead of one vote.
                    • If two Alice voters decide to abstain from voting - Bob will also have a lead of one vote.

                    Two non-voters are equivalent to one voter switching sides. Therefore - one non-vote is equivalent to half a vote for the opponent.