|
the... the moral system where being a rapist who hurts X people is bad? 
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I make no claims to be a moral authority but I'm curious if anyone feels comfortable expanding on this. If our choices are a rapist who hurts X people vs a rapist that hurts X + 30 million people, I'm not sure of what moral systems do justify staying out if it? Always voting for the lesser of two evils gets you candidates who are increasingly evil. So as a utilitarian you shouldn't do it. Duh. Edit: Unless your ethics system can't look past the next 2 years. Do you reelect your fundamental morals with every new Congress?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I make no claims to be a moral authority but I'm curious if anyone feels comfortable expanding on this. If our choices are a rapist who hurts X people vs a rapist that hurts X + 30 million people, I'm not sure of what moral systems do justify staying out if it? The only moral answer is to smash the system.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I make no claims to be a moral authority but I'm curious if anyone feels comfortable expanding on this. If our choices are a rapist who hurts X people vs a rapist that hurts X + 30 million people, I'm not sure of what moral systems do justify staying out if it? It's hard to measure, but probably safe to assume Biden has hurt at least 30 million more people than Trump. This doesn't mean it's suddenly moral to vote Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Always voting for the lesser of two evils gets you candidates who are increasingly evil. So as a utilitarian you shouldn't do it. Duh. This doesn't make sense on it's face. Voting for the greater evil gets you increasing evil, it's literally a tautology.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
if you're actually serious, there are so many differing critiques of utilitarianism books could be written on it, and indeed they have! The easiest is of course, how do you measure harm? Is a person dying worse than sexual assault? I mean, probably. So what if someone's a serial rapist like eppstein and someone killed one person, who's the worse one? What's the exchange rate of a rape to a murder? What if it's a premeditated murder? The other, and more important thing is, is that once you start doing utilitarian analysis like that which is completely divorced from actual complex human existence, you begin to ask yourself immoral questions like how many rapes are permissible, or how many murders are justified, or... well, a million things. But at the end of the day, you're missing the forest for the trees: the game of the trolley problem is rigged from the start. The only moral option is to reject the premise.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Trump presidency made Democrats take the house, which is good. A demented rapist (D) in the White House will push voters to hand Republicans control of both the house and the senate again in 4 years, which is a worse state to be in. It's not likely that Trump would win but Republicans wouldn't take the house back at the same time, it's not like the gerrymandered districts went away.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
3rdEyeDeuteranopia posted:Let me preface this by saying I think it's possible or maybe probable that Joe Biden raped Tara Reade. Biden is El Cuco, easy
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:The other, and more important thing is, is that once you start doing utilitarian analysis like that which is completely divorced from actual complex human existence, you begin to ask yourself immoral questions like how many rapes are permissible, or how many murders are justified, or... well, a million things. But at the end of the day, you're missing the forest for the trees: the game of the trolley problem is rigged from the start. The only moral option is to reject the premise. I think this is touching on what I'm asking mostly, but could you please expand on this? What happens if all good people do reject the premise and take themselves out of the voting pool? What moral framework are we using here?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
It is kinda sad that this is the culmination of 50 years of neoliberalism crushing the poor and middle class. We have a choice between two people that the donors are very happy with. In fact the donors are so happy with Biden they might even let us lower the age for medicare by 5 years. I'm so fed up with all of this.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This doesn't make sense on it's face. Voting for the greater evil gets you increasing evil, it's literally a tautology. Who was saying they should vote for trump?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I make no claims to be a moral authority but I'm curious if anyone feels comfortable expanding on this. If our choices are a rapist who hurts X people vs a rapist that hurts X + 30 million people, I'm not sure of what moral systems do justify staying out if it? f(x)x->∞ = x + 30000000 It’s a linear function with an offset that’s large, but ultimately a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Your framing of this starts with “If our choices are” and immediately narrows it to a binary option. It’s not a binary option; your premise and framework is flawed, and as a result you’ll only be able to wind up with a limited selection of possibilities. It’s taking the trolley problem at face value and doing the moral calculus within the constraints given to you: you don’t challenge the premises; therefore, you cannot challenge or change the outcomes. It is a fundamental lack of imagination. You cannot imagine a better future because you’re convinced that the only options are “worse” and “less worse”. Not better, “less worse”.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This doesn't make sense on it's face. Voting for the greater evil gets you increasing evil, it's literally a tautology. Voting for the lesser evil (in this case, a relatively right-wing Democratic candidate) signals to the Democratic Party that its voter base is perfectly willing and ready to vote for a relatively right-wing candidate, causing the Democratic Party to put out more relatively right-wing candidates in future elections. Since there's apparently no candidate too far right for leftist Democrats to consider supporting as long as the candidate is a Democrat, the Democratic Party is incentivized to move farther right in order to expand their base further by trying to peel off traditional Republican voters. This has literally been happening before our eyes for decades. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” The only way to stop the constant rightward drift of the Democratic Party is to confront it with the threat of losing the left entirely. In short, Phone posted:Your framing of this starts with “If our choices are” and immediately narrows it to a binary option. It’s not a binary option; your premise and framework is flawed, and as a result you’ll only be able to wind up with a limited selection of possibilities. It’s taking the trolley problem at face value and doing the moral calculus within the constraints given to you: you don’t challenge the premises; therefore, you cannot challenge or change the outcomes. Pussy Cartel fucked around with this message at 16:04 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This doesn't make sense on it's face. Voting for the greater evil gets you increasing evil, it's literally a tautology. Don't vote for Trump either. Duh. Just vote for one of the non-rapists.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This doesn't make sense on it's face. Voting for the greater evil gets you increasing evil, it's literally a tautology. voting for the lesser evil also gets you increasing evil, it's literally a tautology
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I think this is touching on what I'm asking mostly, but could you please expand on this? What happens if all good people do reject the premise and take themselves out of the voting pool? What moral framework are we using here? All good people should band together and organise. They should struggle to make meaningful change in their real lives. They should proselytize others to make that change. They should not vote for rapists and war hawks. A 'moral framework' is a delusion that divorces you from the economic and societal reality, which actually is material reality. This is why you're framing this whole exercise as a binary, instead of what it really is, a moment to make a complex decision in accordance with your beliefs in a difficult world. The only meaningful morality is to attempt to improve the real, material conditions of people. This means advocating for socialist policies in the economic sphere, and it also means standing firm in defense of people who are victims of any sort of violence, harassment or disenfranchisment; and against those that perpetuate these. Neither of the two main options in the upcoming general elections does any of those moral things, as evidenced by the broad reaction to this whole fiasco from the democrats and the general policies of their chosen representative; and well, I don't really need to point out anything for Trump do I? Reject the premise. Vote green, vote downballot for progressive democrats and leave the president's name blank, go start a mutual aid group on voting day instead, I don't care. Just don't accept that you have no choices, because as long as you do that, it's gonna get worse. And worse. And worse. dex_sda fucked around with this message at 16:13 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Phone posted:f(x)x->∞ = x + 30000000 I dont understand this at all. Yeah for sure 30 million people is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things, but I think if we can act to reduce 30 million peoples suffering we should usually do that. The premise I was originally talking about is what is morally justifiable in a race between Biden and Trump, so of course the parameters I used were binary? I mean, granted I may not have the best imagination, all of my thoughts of a better future aren't really imaginative, they were all Bernie is the nominee, grassroots campaigns to get more leftists elected etc, so I guess you have a point there but I just don't understand what you mean by it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I make no claims to be a moral authority but I'm curious if anyone feels comfortable expanding on this. If our choices are a rapist who hurts X people vs a rapist that hurts X + 30 million people, I'm not sure of what moral systems do justify staying out if it? The logic only works if we're talking about an isolated non-repeating event, but since elections keep repeating periodically and as mentioned picking the lesser evil brought us to Trump in the first place, so considering the long term even an utilitarian analysis would lead to the necessity of not mindlessly following a disastrous losing strategy over and over. Hell, I'm old enough to remember that the lesser evil argument was wheeled out to argue for why you should vote for John Kerry because Bush was just that bad, and now we've gotten to the point where the liberals are falling over themselves to praise Bush and how great he was. That's the end result here.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:Well that depends. Since several Pro Trump states are reopening early, a la Amittyville beaches in Jaws, the resulting causalities will disabuse the moronic masses of their false god. I’ve got bad news for you about which populations in red states are the ones dying of Coronavirus. It’s the minority populations not the chuds. If a bunch of black people die in Georgia will that decrease voter turnout for Trump supporters?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
Pussy Cartel posted:The only way to stop the constant rightward drift of the Democratic Party is to confront it with the threat of losing the left entirely. This line of thinking might be more valid if we didn’t already try it four years ago, and end up with an even more right wing nominee than last time. Does anyone really think the Democrats are going to move more to the left after losing to Trump a second time, instead of choosing to get more racist? And the people you want to see get hurt in the mean time don’t get hurt - they thrive even more, and those you are trying to protect end up bearing all the consequences.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I dont understand this at all. Voting for Biden isn't going to reduce 30 million peoples' suffering. If you want to make that the cornerstone of your argument, you have a little bit of homework to do. E: TyrantWD posted:This line of thinking might be more valid if we didn’t already try it four years ago, and end up with an even more right wing nominee than last time. Hmm, seems like there’s nothing that can stop the Democratic Party’s march rightward. Something tells me that showing our bellies isn’t going to work in order to slow them down or change direction. 
Phone fucked around with this message at 16:25 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:This line of thinking might be more valid if we didn’t already try it four years ago, quote:Does anyone really think the Democrats are going to move more to the left after losing to Trump a second time, instead of choosing to get more racist?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:This line of thinking might be more valid if we didn’t already try it four years ago, and end up with an even more right wing nominee than last time. I don't recall the left sitting out any major election four years ago, and voting for Biden isn't going to save anyone. Hate to say it, but if the left wants to accomplish anything it won't be by voting for one of two bigoted, fascism-enabling rapists in the presidential election. People were suffering tremendously before Trump was elected, and voting to apply a thin veneer of decorum on everything that's happened since won't help anyone but the people who just want to be able to stop caring about politics (which is, sadly, a large proportion of Democrats).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I dont understand this at all. I question what the limits are to this line of moral reasoning. For example, if we could save 1 orphaned puppy, then all else being equal we should absolutely do that. So, hypothetically, the Democrats could nominate Tronald Dump, and identical copy of Donald Trump in every way except he has promised that along with doing everything Trump will do, he will save 1 poor orphaned puppy. Should we vote for all the evil he will do then, since after all he will save a puppy? If you carry this utilitarian line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then yes you should vote for a Donald Trump clone to save a puppy, and handwave away all the evil he will do as the cost of doing business, it's inevitable, it would have happened anyway, so all that matters is that one puppy. You could take that moral position, I think it's monstrous and insane, but you could do that and it would be consistent and I can't prove that your moral reasoning is wrong, I just don't like it. Most people would probably reject that though, and in that case, there must be some kind of line where the evil you're enabling is too great to justify. And if you agree with that, then we have to talk about where that line is, and why sexual assault, caging refugee children, mass murdering millions of people in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, etc isn't over the line.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
Hope it's ok to crosspost from the UKMT in here for some Content, courtesy of the UKMT's very own podcast. We recently recorded a special episode on the Bernie campaign, and I hoped it might be interesting for (some of) you to listen to a transatlantic perspective on things. https://twitter.com/PraxisCast/status/1257329737841676294?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I dont understand this at all. Imagine if I actually showed up at your house, and pointed a gun at you, and made you choose between two evil things. And then I kept doing it! Would you just keep playing along while I did this every two years? Like CB said, I've been around long enough to remember being told that we had to vote for Kerry to defeat Bush. Now liberals are holding Bush up as a president they disagreed with but could "respect" because he was "presidential." (This is the guy who told the President of France that the invasion of Iraq was a holy war.) Over any kind of long term, lesser-evilism is a failure. We have to refuse to support a controlled opposition. There are a lot of strategies for approaching that, none of which have an easily defined payoff in the short term. And you can't set up some sophomoric trolley problem scenario to test them, because they're necessarily out of the scope of those ludicrously contrived parameters. That said, go vote for Biden if you feel like it. Even on its own terms, your Trolley Problem is a bad analogy because you know that you can pull the lever and you know that it will change the track. This entire election is illegitimate and who knows if your vote will even be counted?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
who are these 30 million people suffering under Trump that will find relief and liberation under Biden? Biden certainly isn't promising anything worded like that that I've seen, and I'm not even sure he'd be the darling of the Epstein bloc if that were realistically possible because those kind of numbers can't be delivered within an austerity-pushing neoliberal framework
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
If you vote idealistically, you vote for who represents you best even if they aren't one of the two main contenders. If you vote strategically, with nothing but pragmatism in your heart, then you just stay home because your vote will never be the deciding vote in a presidential election. You're better off spending that time buying lottery tickets. You have a better chance of winning the lottery and then parlaying that $$ into helping a political campaign you agree with than you do of having your one vote matter. Idealists shouldn't vote for Joe Biden, and pragmatists shouldn't vote, period.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
Phone posted:Voting for Biden isn't going to reduce 30 million peoples' suffering. I fully accept Trump harming more people than Biden is unproven. It was just a hypothetical we were using to talk about moral justification. I apologise for not being more clear. dex_sda posted:Effort post I appreciate the effort post, and I do agree with a big chunk of it. I guess my final question before I take a big break and think about all this stuff is, do you consider this accelerationism? And if not, what's the difference? Thanks again and I'm sorry if I poo poo this thread up with moral philosophy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:This line of thinking might be more valid if we didn’t already try it four years ago, and end up with an even more right wing nominee than last time. if the party itself was shifting right and not just the leadership, M4A wouldn't have a supermajority of support and none of the centrist sociopaths would be having to brand their particular flavor of private industry handout as Medicare for All and their "fracking is now green energy y'all!" plans as a Green New Deal. If the leadership wasn't shifting right of where the base is, Clinton wouldn't have had massively depressed turnout and Biden's wouldn't be setting records for lack of enthusiasm for a candidate like look how far Warren got on a progressive platform and then look what happened to her after she sprinted rightward lol if your argument is that leadership will never move left so just give up, I reject that. Leadership in this case must be destroyed utterly by any means necessary, be it popular revolt at a convention or by shifting their leftist votepigs to a party that actually presents a coherent and moral platform Jimbozig posted:If you vote idealistically, you vote for who represents you best even if they aren't one of the two main contenders. one thing I like to point out is that nobody alive today except a relative handful of people has ever been permitted to actually cast a vote for the President lol
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
The trolley problem where you pull a lever that kills 2 people to save 5. Except the bad track kills a million people and the "good" track kills 999,999 of those same people, and then after that there's an infinite series of identical trolley problems that demand you make the "good" choice to kill another 999,999 people every two years
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I appreciate the effort post, and I do agree with a big chunk of it. I guess my final question before I take a big break and think about all this stuff is, do you consider this accelerationism? And if not, what's the difference? I wouldn't, no. Accelerationism holds that you actively want the bad outcome to win so it can cause a reactionary shift in public opinion. In this case, you just have two bad options, and you can't (and shouldn't!) claim that one or the other will eventually lead to a worse or better outcome because they're both pretty similarly bad. That's why you should reject the premise, deny either the vote, and instead work on something that actively improves things through some other avenue. It might be organising, it might be charity, it might be trying to work to undermine Democrats or Republicans from within, I don't know and that's up to you to decide.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
All the hemming and hawing and big effort posts about the supreme court and climate scientists and weighing one or a few rapes against many rapes is all just a way to convince yourself that voting for Joe Biden in November allows you to maintain your status as a "good person" -- even more so because it's a Hard Decision and Joe's Not Good, But He's Better Than Trump and Gosh Darnit I Wanted Bernie But I'm An Adult.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
does anybody here seriously think if it was up to Perez and Clinton and Obama that the primary would've been a referendum on M4A with fringe issues like splitting with AIPAC and SuperPACs? Look at where they've gone as soon as they got control of the messaging back - yellow peril scares, scolding Trump for not being hawkish enough, and an emphasis on placating the donor class through stuff like bringing Summers on board and announcing that the embassy would be staying in Jerusalem if the base were truly as right wing as the party itself the primary would've been about which new wars we're gonna start to juice the economy, and which donor-approved flavor of reform they'll implement in year 3 to keep the ACA on life support dex_sda posted:I wouldn't, no. Accelerationism holds that you actively want the bad outcome to win so it can cause a reactionary shift in public opinion. In this case, you just have two bad options, and you can't (and shouldn't!) claim that one or the other will eventually lead to a worse or better outcome because they're both pretty similarly bad. That's why you should reject the premise, deny either the vote, and instead work on something that actively improves things through some other avenue. It might be organising, it might be charity, it might be trying to work to undermine Democrats or Republicans from within, I don't know and that's up to you to decide. any accelerationist is voting Trump
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
Pussy Cartel posted:Voting for the lesser evil (in this case, a relatively right-wing Democratic candidate) signals to the Democratic Party that its voter base is perfectly willing and ready to vote for a relatively right-wing candidate, causing the Democratic Party to put out more relatively right-wing candidates in future elections. Since there's apparently no candidate too far right for leftist Democrats to consider supporting as long as the candidate is a Democrat, the Democratic Party is incentivized to move farther right in order to expand their base further by trying to peel off traditional Republican voters. Broadly speaking, your premise is not correct. The Democratic party has been (slowly) moving left for decades, with a few momentary rightward blips here and there. They are not moving left quickly enough to suit most of the posters on this dead comedy message board.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I fully accept Trump harming more people than Biden is unproven. It was just a hypothetical we were using to talk about moral justification. I apologise for not being more clear. Since we're playing in the hypothetical space, it follows the rules of "there are no bad ideas in brainstorming". The fact that you were so quick to dismiss my rejection of your premises makes it obvious that you're not challenging your own premises or giving them a proper analytical shakedown. Why 30 million? Is it because it's roughly 10% of the US population? Why not 1? Why not 300 million? Why not 0? Gentleman Baller posted:I appreciate the effort post, and I do agree with a big chunk of it. I guess my final question before I take a big break and think about all this stuff is, do you consider this accelerationism? And if not, what's the difference? As someone who has been repeatedly called a "black pilled nihilist" for refusing to eat the Democratic Party's poo poo stew, aren't the acceptable candidates being put forth by the Democratic Party the accelerationists? They're the ones that are proposing nothing will fundamentally change. They're the ones saying that the Green New Deal won't happen. They're the ones who are aiming for a 3.9C rise in temperatures by 2050 instead of 4C. They're the ones trying to start a land war in Iran (and probably China, too). They're the ones saying government run healthcare will never happen. It's cute to accuse others of what you are as a means of deflection; it's what the Democratic Party excels at.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Broadly speaking, your premise is not correct. The Democratic party has been (slowly) moving left for decades, with a few momentary rightward blips here and there. They are not moving left quickly enough to suit most of the posters on this dead comedy message board. what, pray tell, have they moved left on since Carter. Keep in mind before answering that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept gay marriage (Biden stood staunchly opposed to it in the 2008 VP debates!) and even then it wasn't them that delivered, but a conservative SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:any accelerationist is voting Trump The only reason for that is the liberals will go back to ignoring politics if Trump loses, which obviously lowers the reactionary shift to the left. As far as policies themselves they're a wash
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Broadly speaking, your premise is not correct. The Democratic party has been (slowly) moving left for decades,
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If you vote idealistically, you vote for who represents you best even if they aren't one of the two main contenders. You are the only person who will remember your vote in an idealistic way, history will only remember the victor. If it makes you feel better than that's one thing but it has little to no bearing to what actually happens as an effect of what your vote meant to the election itself. The thought that your vote is not the deciding vote is a harmful one because depending on where you live your vote is extremely important. Enough people subscribe to this dogma and that is what swings elections, especially in unexpected ways. Some posts ago there was a point made that it's the lesser of two evils that brought us Trump and while that may feel very true there is only one side of the political spectrum that operates in that fashion. Clinton lost by a razor thin margin in a lot of places, and some in which the other candidates got more votes than she lost by - by a sizable margin. Idealistically or pragmatically, the results will be the results and to the victors go the spoils. Epic High Five posted:what, pray tell, have they moved left on since Carter. Keep in mind before answering that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept gay marriage (Biden stood staunchly opposed to it in the 2008 VP debates!) and even then it wasn't them that delivered, but a conservative SCOTUS All social movements have involved the people in power being dragged along kicking and screaming. I was basically not legal to be a person around 50 years ago. Yuzenn fucked around with this message at 16:58 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:56
|
|
