this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1199 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2127 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] piecat@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Say genocide A was 100 million and genocide B was 500 million. You can save A, B, or neither. Which do you pick?

Hint: there's only one right answer.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

The trolley problem is bullshit. You're using bullshit to rationalise accepting the deaths of innocent people.

The trolley problem - specifically the version where you must push one fat guy to save five others - requires a Descartesian 'Evil demon' to perfectly produce the reality of, or appearance of, a contrived situation wherein you are forced to be responsible for the murderous actions of another.
This situation explicitly creates an either/or situation, as if the only way to save people in America is to let brown people in another country die.

 

Source: medium

In 1976, Judith J. Thomson expanded the problem into the classic version that most of us know today.

Would you push a fat man off a bridge to stop a runaway trolley from killing 5 workers on the tracks?

This version is not just about switching tracks, but brings the moral issue much closer to home by saying if you want to save 5 people, you yourself have to push someone off a bridge.

To make matters worse, these are also the only two choices that you have. There is nothing else you can do; there is no escaping the problem.

[...]

Like many philosophy instructors, I have given this thought experiment to my students many times. In my philosophy classes, Students of all levels and ages are repulsed by the experiment. They think that it is stupid that there are only two choices and that there is nothing else they can do.

[...]

But something I have never seen given much consideration is the initial response that my students and so many others have to the problem.

[...]

Our intuition is that if we are in a lose-lose moral situation where the right moral action does not feel satisfactory, then someone else made a bad moral decision already; leaving us holding the bag.

 

I am not, in reality, forced to be complicit in a political system where it has been decided that we must murder some of the innocent in order to protect more of the innocent. Anyone trying to force me to think that way is either malicious or deluded, and at the very least believes in a shit thought experiment which has nothing to do with real-life moral decisions.

 

Hint: there is only one right answer, and that is you agree that killing innocent people is wrong, so do not support killing innocent people. That's how morality works. Or do you need a trolley to come towards you and your family while you are all strapped to the tracks before you realise it?

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Your lack of choosing the lesser poison for million is, indeed, complicity in of itself whether you like it or not. Patting yourself on the back as you usher in Trump when you could've had Harris — who is obviously in every single way better on Gaza than Trump — is perhaps the most illogical thing I have ever seen.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

perhaps the most illogical thing

Here's how logic works:

If killing is wrong, then don't kill.

Can America please stop enabling the killing. Thanks.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Less killing is better than more killing.

Attempted ceasefire is better than undermining said ceasefire.

More amicability better than less amicability.

Less Ukrainians die vs more Ukrainians die.

Comparative logic.

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are complicit by living in the US and paying taxes which fund military aid to Israel. Not voting does not absolve you. And in the case of this election, it makes you slightly more complicit because one of the war criminals who is running is slightly worse than the other.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are complicit by living in the US

Do you know what? I'll make an international move across the ocean just to accommodate you.

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Everyone in the US is complicit. Everyone in NATO member countries is complicit. Everyone not fighting to overthrow their imperialist government is complicit. Again, not the point.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You're using bullshit to rationalise accepting the deaths of innocent people.

Nobody is "accepting the deaths", they are acknowledging the reality of the situation that significantly more people will die through inaction than action.

No one is saying "Vote and then wash your hands of it." Genocide is wrong so you need to do everything you can to prevent it. One of those things is vote, but it is not the only thing. You vote, and you continue to pressure the government to stop assisting in genocide.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So you encourage other people not to and pretend to be helping while in reality making things worse.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I say that killing people is wrong. If that's not acceptable to you, that's fine. I clearly live in a world where killing innocent people is seen as convenient.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Not what I said at all, but thank you for making it clear that you aren't interested in actually having a conversation because you don't bother to listen to what other people say. You just assume the other person said something you can disagree with.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So you encourage other people not to and pretend to be helping while in reality making things worse.

Great conversational skills. Good bye.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So you're not actively trying to convince people not to vote for Harris?

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If saying that killing innocent people is wrong convinces people to not vote for Harris, then Harris is probably not a very good candidate.

I'm actively trying to convince people to find a way to not kill innocent people. I hate the fact that this is happening, and it makes me want to die.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are going into threads about Harris saying "but killing innocent people is wrong."

"I'm not saying don't vote for Harris, I am just inserting the suggestion into conversations about Harris, then claiming you came to that conclusion on your own."

For someone who claims to have strong convictions you sure have a hard time actually standing up for and defending what you are saying. Any pushback and it quickly becomes wishy washy bullshit.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

For someone who claims to have strong convictions you sure have a hard time actually standing up for and defending what you are saying.

I'm saying that killing people is wrong. If you showed me Harris had committed to holding Israel accountable and creating a ceasefire, I would be a big fan. It's not hard to be better than Trump or the Republican party, they're odious.

You can't blame me for my perception that the Democratic party is aiding Israel by sending them weapons. You can blame me for caring about the lives of innocent people, though.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

If you showed me Harris had committed to holding Israel accountable and creating a ceasefire, I would be a big fan.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/harris-netanyahu-israel-hamas-ceasefire/index.html

Vice President Kamala Harris vowed to “not be silent” about suffering in Gaza amid the Israel-Hamas war, saying she expressed her “serious concern” to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Thursday while telling him it is time to lock down a ceasefire deal.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Source: medium

Aahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... I'm sorry, ahem. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I laughed my ass off at this, too.