|
Civilized Fishbot posted:So did I - and we are both responsible for the outcomes of those votes. If my third-party vote makes Trump more likely to be President than other options available to me, I'm responsible for that, and it's the same with you. So your moral stance is that it doesn't much matter what you do, you're either for Joe or for Trump. Fair enough, but gently caress that I'm not voting for either rear end in a top hat. Neither is a win. Squall fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Feb 14, 2024 |
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I'm not asking for an apology, I also didn't vote for Biden in 2020 and won't in 2024. I'm unsure of this reasoning because it assumes a binary choice, candidate A OR B. This stops working when there is a third Candidate, C. If I vote for Candidate A and Candidate B or C wins, am I responsible the actions of the winning candidate B or C? What if there are 12 candidates? Am I always morally responsible for whatever happens by voting for my preferred candidate rather than the candidate who came second (even if I couldn't know who that would be in advance) for the actions of the winner because I didn't perfectly place my vote to most effectively prevent their win?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
Squall posted:So your moral stance is that it doesn't much matter what you do, you're either for Joe or for Trump. No, my moral stance is that we're all responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions. So for you to say "voting for Biden would make me more responsible for what he does" is correct, but to say "declining to vote for Biden does not increase my responsibility for what Trump does" is incorrect. hooman posted:I'm unsure of this reasoning because it assumes a binary choice, candidate A OR B. This stops working when there is a third Candidate, C. If I vote for Candidate A and Candidate B or C wins, am I responsible the actions of the winning candidate B or C? If you could have made a choice that would make B/C more likely to lose, and instead you made a different choice, you're obviously responsible for the outcome that you made more likely. I'm not assuming that elections are binary - you are treating moral responsibility as if it is binary. quote:What if there are 12 candidates? Am I always morally responsible for whatever happens by voting for my preferred candidate rather than the candidate who came second Yes, if you're choosing between different votes that make different outcomes more likely, you're responsible for the outcomes that you know you're making more likely and for the outcomes that you know you're making less likely. You are responsible for the foreseeable outcome of how you use your power as a voter. quote:(even if I couldn't know who that would be in advance) We're responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, not the unforeseeable ones. That's life. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:No, my moral stance is that we're all responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions. The foreseeable consequence of literally any choice in the 2020 and 2024 general is that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be president so does it really much loving matter then? Both suck rear end and frankly I am still not convinced one is better than the other in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
This was posted in the current events thread during the derail, and I think a lot of the disagreement comes down to this really.Rand Brittain posted:There are basically two broad models of what constitutes "right and wrong". If you believe that you should base your morality on consequences, you will come to a different conclusion than if you based your morality on actions. If you believe you could never be moral because you can't be moral and vote for someone who engaged in drone bombings, then voting for either candidate wouldn't work. If you believe morality is based on consequences, you will vote for the candidate who you think would minimize harm. I think the only way to really wash your hands of any responsibility for voting is to put yourself in a position where you cannot legally vote like committing a felony in a state where you can't get your rights to vote restored. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you feel about it, being born a citizen in a Democracy forces you to make the moral choice by default. How the person determines their moral principles is their own choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Game theory requires that I never vote because it is almost statistically impossible that my individual vote will make the difference and the cost of my time is too high. But, if everyone knew that, then it would become a collective action problem. So, the most optimal form of electoralism is to not vote, but strongly encourage everyone else to vote for their preferred candidate. The ideal scenario is 99.99% turnout with you as the sole abstention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:No, my moral stance is that we're all responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions. By this logic, do you believe anyone who declined to vote for Donald Trump is responsible for what Biden has done? (This isn't a gotcha I'm trying to understand this.) Civilized Fishbot posted:If you could have made a choice that would make B/C more likely to lose, and instead you made a different choice, you're obviously responsible for the outcome that you made more likely. I am responsible for making the good outcome of A more likely, yes. Whether the bad outcome of B/C happens I have not controlled. Am I responsible for both?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
Sure, but earlier you were talking about Trump replacing Biden like it's such an obviously bad thing that you have to preemptively disavow responsibility for it. Squall posted:If not voting for Biden results in a second Trump term, then that's not my fault and gently caress you. If you've now changed to "sure, by choosing to withhold my vote from Biden I might increase my responsibility for Trump becoming President instead, but it's impossible to tell whether this is good or bad" then that's a consistent theory of responsibility. hooman posted:By this logic, do you believe anyone who declined to vote for Donald Trump is responsible for what Biden has done? (This isn't a gotcha I'm trying to understand this.) Yes, they are obviously more responsible for Biden's victory and subsequent administration than if they had voted for Trump. They could have made a choice that obviously made Biden's victory less likely, they didn't make that choice, the way responsibility works here is obvious. quote:I am responsible for making the good outcome of A more likely, yes. Whether the bad outcome of B/C happens I have not controlled. Am I responsible for both? If you could have exerted greater control over whether B or C wins, and you chose not to exert that control because you voted for A instead, you're responsible for any foreseeable outcome from that. We are responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of our actions. If compared to different choices available to us, our actions will clearly make one outcome more likely and another less likely, we are responsible for that. This logic is the same whether we're talking about driving drunk or making a political donation or casting a vote. The problem here appears to be thinking of responsibility as binary (my hands are either clean or unclean) or thinking of not voting/protest voting as some sort of abstention that erases responsibility rather than a deliberate choice that can be morally evaluated just like voting for candidate R or candidate D. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:This was posted in the current events thread during the derail, and I think a lot of the disagreement comes down to this really. I feel like the words minimise harm cause a lot of issues in electoral politics discussion because there are two competing forms of harm minimisation. There is harm minimisation in voting for a party that is morally abhorrent to you because the short term harm of not doing so is worse, even when that vote enables or worse emboldens those abhorrent actions. There is harm minimisation in withdrawing your vote in an attempt to create change even when you know that change might also make them worse. I suspect it comes to individual judgement when someone is willing to do the first, versus feeling obliged to do the second.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Sure, but earlier you were talking about Trump replacing Biden like it's such an obviously bad thing that you have to preemptively disavow responsibility for it. My mindset for 2020 is that Trump would have likely been worse in the short term and Biden is probably worse in the long term. Frankly I think my sanity would have improved if Trump had won so all the partisan hacks would have at least pretended to care about the atrocities that are happening. I wasn't going to vote for Trump just to try to accelerate to someone worth voting for though, frankly because I thought that Biden would have the common courtesy to either die or let someone else run in 2024. Morally there was no moral choice in 2020 and frankly I don't see one in 2024 either. The best case scenario is that old age manages to take both of them before the election. I am curious what other people thinks the "moral" choice is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
How do I weight my individual moral vote against the millions of dollars spent on lobbying, and the words and promises exchanged with lobbyists that I’ll never be party to? Is it possible to know the moral weight of a vote when so much of the action of policy being put into place is hidden from the public view?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Yes, they are obviously more responsible for Biden's victory and subsequent administration than if they had voted for Trump. They could have made a choice that obviously made Biden's victory less likely, they didn't make that choice, the way responsibility works here is obvious. I feel like the forseeable consequences of our actions traps us though. Because if all people voted for Candidate A, candidate A would be elected. I can not know how other people vote, and only assume they will not vote for candidate A, therefore must vote for B/C to minimise my moral culpability. But then I am also responsible for not electing the good candidate A. I think I actually understand now though. There is always some form of moral responsibility. I am twisting myself in loops trying to understand a "right" answer when there isn't one, there is just stuff we have caused. Thanks for explaining it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
I think putting all of our focus on voting diminishes other direct action. Not necessarily by discussing it here, but for example there are plenty of folks whom I could never convince to vote dem, and only maybe hope to get them to not vote republican/trump. But given your county and state,the outcome may be a foregone conclusion anyway. If I choose not to focus on voting as a serious relationship with power I can convince otherwise partisan people of other things. If my friends homesteaders husband will NEVER vote dem because he's afraid of communism, that is already a loss. But maybe I can convince him to boycott Amazon because he's afraid of the "global elite". I guess when my anecdotal experience has far more people whose political views are incoherent and impossible, it's hard to see how stressing the importance of a vote that I don't believe in (in a system I don't believe in) is itself coherent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 16:14
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:No, my moral stance is that we're all responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions. The consequences of our actions are very often not foreseeable or only foreseeable in rather limited ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Yes, if you're choosing between different votes that make different outcomes more likely, you're responsible for the outcomes that you know you're making more likely and for the outcomes that you know you're making less likely. Europoster here: We just had our presidential election and there was a clown car of 9 candidates because most established parties ran their own guy or gal. It was pretty clear that the Left Alliance lady didn't have a chance of getting elected, but some people still voted for her because she was the most left-wing slash progressive candidate available. Also the youngest. I honestly don't see how that voting choice implicates people for the actions of the neo-lib poo poo-bird who wound up winning, the whole idea of the multi-party system is (in theory anyway) voting for your values. That is maybe more true historically since during the previous century most political parties were explicitly the political representation group for some interest group in the nation (workers, capitalists, agrarian people, etc.), but nowadays the parties are trying to be slightly more diverse, either honestly or dishonestly. Obviously the neo-lib poo poo bird party is the party of neo-lib shitbird values, but they marketed their dude as the "unifier of the nation", and so on. Anyway, the moral logic you've outlined seems to boil down to a moral argument necessitating a two-party system, since voting for the minor parties will most likely result in a sub-optimal outcome for the policy that follows. This seems bizarre to me, having grown up in a nation where there's always been ten-ish parties with 3 or 4 big ones. I did not vote for our neo-lib candidate for president, but due to not gaming my vote, I am morally culpable for his existence? This is even worse in the election for our parliament (mostly because our president doesn't actually do much), where typically the largest party will be given primacy as the former of the coalition government that follows, but at this stage the voters have no (direct) say in which parties wind up forming the coalition. If I cannot predict what my vote will even accomplish, as you say I cannot foresee what my vote will do, and the logic behind my vote seems like it doesn't need to be gamified 100%; just vote whomever you please. I understand the frustration of the US system where effectively there are only two groups to vote for, the other more preferable but still potentially revolting, like some people here have expressed feeling over Biden's foreign policy choices. Looking at it from my perspective, I have a hard time with the sometimes expressed moral logic that withholding a vote from the Dems is automatically supporting Republicans. Especially in states where one party dominates; abstaining from voting won't have a mathematically significant effect in that scenario, so how is the non-voter responsible, morally, for things they can't even meaningfully effect? This seems like a weird hostage situation where politicians are "owed" votes, morally, instead of receiving votes for their perceived policy goals (or how one would like to have a beer with them, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:I think putting all of our focus on voting diminishes other direct action. Not necessarily by discussing it here, but for example there are plenty of folks whom I could never convince to vote dem, and only maybe hope to get them to not vote republican/trump. I'll never forget this interview that was done during the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus. This group of ladies were all in for Pete Buttigieg. They were decked out with shirts, flags, pins, etc. The reporter asked the ladies if they thought Pete being gay was going to be a factor in the general election. They were gobsmacked to find out that he was gay and dropped their support. This, of course, led to so many questions. What did they learn about Pete that made them support him? How, in the course of learning about him, did they miss the one major aspect of his life and campaign? It's not like he hid it. If they're so turned off by gay people, what in the gently caress were they doing in the Democratic caucus, where the party platform is pro LGBTQ? This is electoralism. If you're looking for consistency and moral certainty, you've come to the wrong place. You have to make a decision that is lumped in with the 300+ million other people that have just as much consistency and morality as the Mayor Pete supporters above. The system that we all participate in, regardless of action or inaction, contains 300+ million people with their own ideas and agendas which intersect and diverge with everybody else's ideas and agendas. It may sound nihilistic, but it is chaos! So what do I do? I volunteer. I encourage my kids to be politically engaged, or at least aware of what's going on. And I vote. I know that if Biden wins in November, the outcome will be a net positive. I know that if Trump wins in November, the outcome will be a net negative. I know that I can prove that assertion. I know I have no control over the outcome. All I can do is contribute to the outcome, however small my contribution is. I know that, if I volunteer at a soup kitchen, I'm not single-handedly saving the lives of the people coming in needing help. But I am contributing to the outcome where they get help. That's all it is for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The consequences of our actions are very often not foreseeable or only foreseeable in rather limited ways. Obviously. That's why I said "foreseeable consequences", because that's only a subset of "all consequences." Rappaport posted:Europoster here: We just had our presidential election and there was a clown car of 9 candidates because most established parties ran their own guy or gal. It was pretty clear that the Left Alliance lady didn't have a chance of getting elected, but some people still voted for her because she was the most left-wing slash progressive candidate available. Also the youngest. I honestly don't see how that voting choice implicates people for the actions of the neo-lib poo poo-bird who wound up winning, the whole idea of the multi-party system is (in theory anyway) voting for your values. If they could have made a different choice that made the poo poo-bird less likely to win, and they didn't, they're responsible for that discrepancy. quote:Anyway, the moral logic you've outlined seems to boil I did not vote for our neo-lib candidate for president, but due to not gaming my vote, I am morally culpable for his existence? If you could have made him less likely to win by making a different choice, then you're responsible for that consequence of your decision, just like you're responsible for all other consequences of your voting decision, positive and negative. quote:This is even worse in the election for our parliament \If I cannot predict what my vote will even accomplish, as you say I cannot foresee what my vote will do, and the logic behind my vote seems like it doesn't need to be gamified 100%; just vote whomever you please. If you really truly can't discern the consequences of your choices at all, then you have no power and no responsibility. You're not actually making choices at that point. quote:. Especially in states where one party dominates; abstaining from voting won't have a mathematically significant effect in that scenario, so how is the non-voter responsible, morally, for things they can't even meaningfully effect? I don't understand how you could have this question after reading the post you're quoting. If your vote doesn't change the likelihood of a candidate winning, then it's a meaningless action with no moral weight - unless you say there could be consequences like boosting the profile of a third party, or sending a message to candidates or other voters, etc. In that case you are morally responsible for those outcomes which you chose to make.more or less likely. If your vote changes the likelihood of a candidate winning, you're morally responsible for that. I'm not telling anyone how to vote, just explaining that the principle underlying our moral responsibility for the consequences of our actions is the same for voting/not voting for a candidate as donating/not donating to a fund or buckling/not buckling your seatbelt etc. if you know that what you're doing will change what might happen in the future, compared to other choices you could make, you are obviously responsible for those changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I'm not telling anyone how to vote, just explaining that the principle underlying our moral responsibility for the consequences of our actions is the same for voting/not voting for a candidate as donating/not donating to a fund or buckling/not buckling your seatbelt etc. if you know that what you're doing will change what might happen in the future, compared to other choices you could make, you are obviously responsible for those changes. Right, but my point was that if either due to lack of information (which of our parties will go into the coalition) or lack of political power (Dem voter in a burning red state), then the voting decision's moral implications are different. Maybe we're just agreeing with each other at this point though, but I've seen the politicians-are-owed-your-support reasoning expressed quite often out in the wild too, and it seems quizzical to me because that ultimately seems to defeat the point of a representative democracy. If I'm given a reasonably informed decision making chance, like with Biden and Trump, there seem to be valid reasons for not supporting Biden, but on the other hand it is true that with inaction it is possible society in the US will be more regressive and lovely for e.g. minorities. It seems to me that morally this choice can be impossible, people have different values (like let's say Biden's Israel policies) and morality isn't IMO absolute. I realize my different political system experience changes how I view this calculation, but representative democracy should be choosing one's values or the closest facsimile. But that's a technical argument, not a moral one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Right, but my point was that if either due to lack of information (which of our parties will go into the coalition) or lack of political power (Dem voter in a burning red state), then the voting decision's moral implications are different. You're explaining very obvious ideas that were already accounted for. What I said, what you quoted, was: "Yes, if you're choosing between different votes that make different outcomes more likely, you're responsible for the outcomes that you know you're making more likely and for the outcomes that you know you're making less likely." The scenarios you describe - a voter who can't affect the outcome, a voter who can't foresee the consequences of their choices - are clearly excluded. If you have no power - because of electoral impotence or political ignorance - you have no responsibility. quote:Maybe we're just agreeing with each other at this point though, but I've seen the politicians-are-owed-your-support reasoning expressed quite often out in the wild too, I have not said or implied that any politician is owed anyone's vote. I think that idea is incoherent. What I've said is that we are all responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our choices. Voting choices obey that logic whether it's a lesser-evil vote or a protest vote or a total abstention from voting or anything else. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I apologize, I didn't mean to imply it was your position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:I'll never forget this interview that was done during the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus. This group of ladies were all in for Pete Buttigieg. They were decked out with shirts, flags, pins, etc. The reporter asked the ladies if they thought Pete being gay was going to be a factor in the general election. They were gobsmacked to find out that he was gay and dropped their support. This, of course, led to so many questions. What did they learn about Pete that made them support him? How, in the course of learning about him, did they miss the one major aspect of his life and campaign? It's not like he hid it. If they're so turned off by gay people, what in the gently caress were they doing in the Democratic caucus, where the party platform is pro LGBTQ? For one sorry I didn't answer your earlier post. I'll cover that shortly. I know there's a conversation about morality going on but I'm focused more on the effective aspect. The effectiveness of voting and of viewing that as our main relationship with power. For me, it's not a political action. I'm pushing/preparing for a paradigm shift. I think this system has, will, and has to fail. Things will have to get worse before there's a chance for them to be different enough that things have a chance to change for the better. There's no guarantee of better here either. But I think the vote (certainly in the US) gives people a false sense of control and operates as a pressure release. Things are well in hand, we have democracy, and we can blame this leader or group of voters for what's happening. It staves off people having more direct action. Now is the guy afraid of communists and globalists gonna help build a better world? Having chickens and produce and knowledge of the land will sure be helpful, so long as he's not convinced to try and murder my brother.* *to be clear, I think our politics and democracy funnel people into poo poo like this. Will somebody hate their gay or Trans neighbor without "their team" constantly megaphone it at them? Some will, but we have direct action to answer that too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
If you're an adult American you're responsible for the American government regardless of whether or not you voted for it. It feels to me that nuanced discussion around this point is an effort in deflecting that responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:If you're an adult American you're responsible for the American government regardless of whether or not you voted for it. It feels to me that nuanced discussion around this point is an effort in deflecting that responsibility. I don't think this is correct based on the conclusions of Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page's famous study on policy preferences vs policy outcomes. Here's a couple key quotes: quote:Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. quote:By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. I think the situation we find ourselves in is in fact the exact opposite of what you state here. If you're an average adult American you have no control whatsoever over the American government. It feels to me that the nuanced discussion around just how much responsibility the average voter bears is an effort in deflection from this reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Yes, they are obviously more responsible for Biden's victory and subsequent administration than if they had voted for Trump. They could have made a choice that obviously made Biden's victory less likely, they didn't make that choice, the way responsibility works here is obvious. I don't know why but this just feels inherently undemocratic and complicating a simple action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:For one sorry I didn't answer your earlier post. I'll cover that shortly. I know there's a conversation about morality going on but I'm focused more on the effective aspect. The effectiveness of voting and of viewing that as our main relationship with power. I have to disagree with you there. The system we live in is a "Ship of Theseus" construction that was first built in 1776. Over the last 250 years, our political system (and society as a whole) has just been a continuous series of this board getting replaced and that board getting replaced and this mast getting added and so on. There is no action or inaction that will lead to us getting another boat entirely. There's also no guarantee that this system will fail. It may get better. Call me a naive optimist if you want. I've got kids and I believe they have a future somewhere. If the system does fail, there's no guarantee we'll be the ones deciding what it's replaced with. I'm not ready to take that risk. Voting is just a small contribution to an outcome. It's hoping the right boards get replaced. As for voting staving off direct action, that's another area I disagree with. With political news and politicians all in our faces and social media, it can be easy to think that voting is the end-all-be-all of political engagement. It's not. Like I said before, voting is a small contribution to an outcome, but it's not the only one and it's not exclusive to other contributions. Direct action is a must. For example, Democrat Tom Suozzi won the NY-03 special election last night. Given that we are well aware of the collective goals of House Republicans, his win was a good thing. The House Republicans have lost a member of their coalition and their collective action will be impeded as a result. That's good. However, Tom's district is very very pro-Israel and Tom reflects their pro-Israel views. That's bad. I was happy to see that his acceptance speech was interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters. That's good. That direct action against Tom will probably not change his views on Israel, but it might embolden other protesters elsewhere to follow suit and protest their representative. THAT may lead to a representative second-guessing their stance on I/P (because their stance may not have been as strong as Tom's). Again, their protest is a contribution to a better outcome and is not cancelled out or invalidated by voting. is pepsi ok posted:
I think that this feeds into this toxic ideal of US individualism. That you and you alone are responsible for everything that happens to you, your community, and your country. "If you're poor, that's because you made bad decisions. And don't ask me to pay for your welfare check. And why should I wear a mask? Like I alone will be responsible for giving everybody COVID? I can make my own decisions about my health, right? Why do I need to join a union? I don't want anybody holding me back while I run up the company ladder! I'm going to make it big like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Henry Ford! Nobody ever helped them make their wealth!" This whole discussion is just focused on us as individuals. As if our decision to vote blue/third party/not at all only effects us individually. "What is the burden that I have to bear? How can I and I alone change the system? Maybe if I opt out, the system will crash. Then I will have done a good deed." A business doesn't close because "you" stopped shopping there. A labor union doesn't collapse because "you" decided you didn't want to pay your dues. A pandemic didn't spread because "you" didn't wear a mask. It was a collective action. This whole discussion feels like it's just individuals trying to justify their individual action in a group dynamic. volts5000 fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I don't know why but this just feels inherently undemocratic and complicating a simple action. I really don't see how it could get any simpler. When you choose to vote one way, as opposed to another way, if it clearly changes what might happen in the future, then you're responsible for those changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:This whole discussion is just focused on us as individuals. As if our decision to vote blue/third party/not at all only effects us individually. "What is the burden that I have to bear? How can I and I alone change the system? Maybe if I opt out, the system will crash. Then I will have done a good deed." A business doesn't close because "you" stopped shopping there. A labor union doesn't collapse because "you" decided you didn't want to pay your dues. A pandemic didn't spread because "you" didn't wear a mask. It was a collective action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I really don't see how it could get any simpler. When you choose to vote one way, as opposed to another way, if it clearly changes what might happen in the future, then you're responsible for those changes. When you vote for someone, yes. But when you start saying that if you decline to vote for one person over another, you’re responsible for those changes, that’s when it starts getting iffy with me, especially if there are other options at play. That’s where it feels in Democratic to me. You’re trying to whittle away at the options people can make
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:collective action still has to start at individual action. if you aren't taking the actions you desire a group to take how the hell are you supposed to move the group there in the first place? Because there's no talk of collectivizing. What organization are we forming? How are we making our demands known to the political parties? There's none of that! It's just people saying "Oh I'm totally voting for Cornel West. That'll show 'em!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I don't know why but this just feels inherently undemocratic and complicating a simple action. I’ve posted it previously in the other thread but I think it’s on point enough to warrant coming up in this thread. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ I think 18 Brumaire is a analogous as a historical explanation / example of how a revolutionary romantic movement (centered around a figure that is a joke and farce ) can overtake a democracy being run by a center liberal coalition that’s detached from the real needs of the population . Anyway the point… The question of vote vs not isn’t without context, we have historical examples of what can happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:When you vote for someone, yes. But when you start saying that if you decline to vote for one person over another, you’re responsible for those changes, that’s when it starts getting iffy with me, especially if there are other options at play. Yes, we are responsible for the changes caused by our actions. If you could make an event less likely, and you instead chose to make a different event less likely, you're responsible for the consequences of that choice. quote:That’s where it feels in Democratic to me. Why do you think you feel that way? quote:You’re trying to whittle away at the options people can make Very bizarre claim, not sure what to make of it. I haven't said anyone should or shouldn't, much less can or can't, do anything at all. Just talking about how responsibility works. I do have intuitions about how people should vote in specific elections and in general but I haven't shared those in this thread. I just disagree with any talk of moral responsibility which ignores or obscures the basic idea that we are responsible for the expected outcomes of our actions, nothing more and nothing less. volts5000 posted:Because there's no talk of collectivizing. What organization are we forming? How are we making our demands known to the political parties? There's none of that! It's just people saying "Oh I'm totally voting for Cornel West. That'll show 'em!" I would really love to see the development of "voter's unions" who don't run candidates but do make demands of candidates in exchange for guaranteeing to provide/withhold their votes. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Because there's no talk of collectivizing. What organization are we forming? How are we making our demands known to the political parties? There's none of that! It's just people saying "Oh I'm totally voting for Cornel West. That'll show 'em!" more serious, i do explain my reasoning and the problems as i see them to whoever will listen to me at the food bank before and after we hand food out
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:I think that this feeds into this toxic ideal of US individualism. That you and you alone are responsible for everything that happens to you, your community, and your country. "If you're poor, that's because you made bad decisions. And don't ask me to pay for your welfare check. And why should I wear a mask? Like I alone will be responsible for giving everybody COVID? I can make my own decisions about my health, right? Why do I need to join a union? I don't want anybody holding me back while I run up the company ladder! I'm going to make it big like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Henry Ford! Nobody ever helped them make their wealth!" To me this kind of hits on what the issue is to me that this is more a philosophical problem and people will feel differently about it depending on their own moral maxims. Even just looking at it from a consequentialist perspective the answer might be different if you are evaluating it with act consequentialism where you would weigh the consequences of individually voting for a candidate or rule consequentialism which would view the morality of voting as a rule. I lean towards it would be better if everyone voted as a rule holding their nose for the least bad candidate. We could talk about how individually that is not effective and that I could certainly agree with but let's not pretend like we have tried the alternative where we have the majority of the American voting population actually vote for their interests. We see constantly that there are tons of issues that the American population approves of in super high percentages like legalizing weed, background checks for guns, universal healthcare ect the list goes on. I can see the argument that if we had higher voter engagement from disaffected or apathetic voters we may be able to move the parties left to address these issues so I am sympathetic to go to vote campaigns. I think this is a large reason why places like Texas tries to do voter suppression so hard because if they are able to make you feel like none of this matters in a state like that they can hold on to reigns of power and makes sure that politics are broken. I don't think this solves any of our problems over night but I guess it just depends if you believe if slow incremental change is possible or if that even if we did everything we where suppose to do and consistently gave democrats super majorities for long periods of time like the Tories have had in the UK that they will never pass popular legislation or police themselves with corruption (might be a whole separate conversation or topic however like what would it take to get citizens united changed.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Very bizarre claim, not sure what to make of it. I haven't said anyone should or shouldn't, much less can or can't, do anything at all. Just talking about how responsibility works. That’s not how responsibility works here. If I feel that both candidates are lovely and do monstrous things, I’m not going to vote for either of them. If my goal is to not have monstrous things happen, then voting for monstrous people who will do monstrous things is not closer to getting my goal. Even if one does less monstrous things than the other, it is not closer to my goal especially when the lesser monster shows no sign of lessening their monstrous habits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I would really love to see the development of "voter's unions" who don't run candidates but do make demands of candidates in exchange for guaranteeing to provide/withhold their votes. I would too. I wonder if there's a precedent for that. I know that different organizations endorse candidates which *might* mobilize they're members to vote for them, but that's secondary to their mission. World Famous W posted:i am a loud and annoying dude about my politics whether it's a convient time or not, does that count? This is America. We are in no shortage of loud annoying dudes. In fact, a bunch of them stormed the Capitol on Jan 6 2021. I am all for being vocal about politics. You might change someone's mind or gain insight to your own view through discussion. Plus, volunteering at your local food bank is something that I wish we could encourage more people to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:That’s not how responsibility works here. If I feel that both candidates are lovely and do monstrous things, I’m not going to vote for either of them. If my goal is to not have monstrous things happen, then voting for monstrous people who will do monstrous things is not closer to getting my goal. Even if one does less monstrous things than the other, it is not closer to my goal especially when the lesser monster shows no sign of lessening their monstrous habits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:33
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:If my goal is to not have monstrous things happen, then voting for monstrous people who will do monstrous things is not closer to getting my goal. Even if one does less monstrous things than the other, it is not closer to my goal especially when the lesser monster shows no sign of lessening their monstrous habits. That is true - if your only moral barometer is "stop all monstrosities" then you have no power to make a morally meaningful choice, and therefore no responsibility. By this standard it is almost certain you will never accomplish anything morally useful in your entire life - or you will end all monstrosities. If "less monstrosities" is morally valuable, then your decision to vote for the less-monstrous candidate makes "less monstrosities" more likely than if you hadn't voted, and you're responsible for that. In comparison, choosing not to vote makes "less monstrosities" less likely than if you'd voted for the less monstrous candidate, and you're responsible for that. And if you vote for the more monstrous candidate, then you're making "more monstrosities" more likely than either of the above choices, and again you are responsible for that. Similarly, if your only moral barometer is "stop all car accidents," then it doesn't make a difference whether you drive drunk or not - either way there will still be car accidents. You do not have the power to change that. But your choice of whether you'll drive drunk or not, that'll have a notable effect on the expected amount of car accidents in the near future, and if that amount has moral value to you, then there's still a moral stake to your decision. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
Vire posted:To me this kind of hits on what the issue is to me that this is more a philosophical problem and people will feel differently about it depending on their own moral maxims. Even just looking at it from a consequentialist perspective the answer might be different if you are evaluating it with act consequentialism where you would weigh the consequences of individually voting for a candidate or rule consequentialism which would view the morality of voting as a rule. I lean towards it would be better if everyone voted as a rule holding their nose for the least bad candidate. All social progress is slow and incremental. Think of all the people who lived and died before the Civil Rights movement grew in the 1950's. Now, think of all the poo poo that still hasn't been fixed since the movement. It's still progress, but it's loving slow. Voting is only one part of the equation. If all we did was vote, and nothing else, then the people who get elected rest on their laurels. They think the status quo is fine and dandy. That's why direct action has to go hand in hand with voting. Direct action alerts other voters to the issues people are facing and how they can be addressed. However, there are voters out there who may be threatened by your direct action. That's why voting is important. You want the people hostile to your direct action efforts to be elected. It not guaranteed to work. Nothing is ever guaranteed. But like I said before, small contributions to the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:That’s not how responsibility works here. If I feel that both candidates are lovely and do monstrous things, I’m not going to vote for either of them. If my goal is to not have monstrous things happen, then voting for monstrous people who will do monstrous things is not closer to getting my goal. Even if one does less monstrous things than the other, it is not closer to my goal especially when the lesser monster shows no sign of lessening their monstrous habits. I know the trolley problem is a meme but the reason people use it is that people don't seem to understand that inaction is also an action it has nothing to do about actually picking what's best its designed to show that if you do nothing you are still responsible. We can argue about how much responsibility that is like maybe its a very small amount barely anything even as you were not the person who tied them to the tracks etc but I would have to actually hear a convincing argument on why if you had the choice to do something that may kill less people its not your responsibility to engage in the question because people will still die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
the trolley problem falls apart when you add "derail this murderous train. my god why won't the engineer slow down?!" as a potential option
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 20:43
|
|