Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares his message to voters in the Uncommitted Movement who are considering not voting in the presidential race over the Biden administration's handling of Israel.
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?
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.
You seem to be under the impression that your not voting changes the binary outcome.
This pyrrhic victory neglects to recognize that either Trump or Harris will be elected. And there is no circumstance that Trump is better than Harris. Not on women’s rights. Not on climate change. Not on Ukraine. And not on Gaza.
Whether you like it or not, it’s Harris or Trump. Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change this fact.
So both the moral and pragmatic solution is to choose the lesser evil that gives the highest odds to improve all these groups. Which is Harris. Factually.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Know what else is ahistorical? The idea that genocide = genocide = genocide, and that there aren’t levels to this.
These people don’t know or care about history.
If genocide is wrong, then genocide is wrong, no matter what the level.
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.
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
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?
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.
Here’s how logic works:
If killing is wrong, then don’t kill.
Can America please stop enabling the killing. Thanks.
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.
Removed by mod
You seem to be under the impression that your not voting changes the binary outcome.
This pyrrhic victory neglects to recognize that either Trump or Harris will be elected. And there is no circumstance that Trump is better than Harris. Not on women’s rights. Not on climate change. Not on Ukraine. And not on Gaza.
Whether you like it or not, it’s Harris or Trump. Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change this fact.
So both the moral and pragmatic solution is to choose the lesser evil that gives the highest odds to improve all these groups. Which is Harris. Factually.
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.
Do you know what? I’ll make an international move across the ocean just to accommodate you.
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.
Aahahahahahahahahahahahaha… I’m sorry, ahem. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I laughed my ass off at this, too.
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.
Okay, but I can’t.
So you encourage other people not to and pretend to be helping while in reality making things worse.
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.
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.
Absolutely. So you admit there are levels.