You know, at first I was thinking that this is a really bad take. But then I realized something: this is a classic trolley problem.
Sparing the details because you probably already know them, it comes down to a choice: you can do nothing and five people will die, or you can actively perform an action and only one person will die. The only choice you have is to do nothing or do something.
So the problem becomes: which is the morally correct choice? On one hand, does doing nothing absolve you of the five deaths you could have avoided? On the other, does actively participating make you responsible for the one death even if it was to save five?
Back in the real world, you have the same choice. Since voting for a third party that has no chance of winning is functionally equivalent to not voting, it plays out the same way. You can do nothing and the genocide gets worse, or you can actively participate and try to reduce the damage. Which is the moral choice? Which will help you sleep at night?
That is a question philosophers have struggled with for centuries, and there’s no good answer. From my personal perspective, doing nothing IS a choice, so no matter what I do I’m still an active participant. Therefore I will choose to minimize the damage.
Yes, it’s bullshit that the current administration hasn’t takes a tougher stance on the conflict. But it will be worse under Trump, as demonstrated by both his words and his actions when he was last in office. So the question is: which will help you sleep at night: doing nothing and telling yourself that you are not responsible when Trump wins, or doing something even though you know it won’t be enough?
As powerless members of the masses, it’s the best we can do.
Vote for a candidate who has demonstrated in front of my eyes that they will support disgusting mass annihilation of human life
Or
Vote for a candidate who it seems like would be worse on the issue somehow.
I’m accepting your framing but it’s really hard to be more concerned about how hypothetically bad trump will be when Ive been seeing a lot of nonhypothetical horrific mass slaughter for 12 months and the “lesser evil” is regularly defending it on tv
Edit: to be clear I won’t be voting for either genocidal candidate
When Trump says that Biden should not be holding Netanyahu back (regardless of whether or not he is) and that Netanyahu is doing a good job, then it can’t be much more clear that Trump is going to enable even more.
I understand but that’s still pitting trump’s words (which aren’t clear, he’s never said anything specific about what he’d do) against the thousands of pounds of very real bombs that biden/harris have provided for mass slaughter. I believe you that there’s a good chance trump will be worse but once again that’s just speculation whereas I don’t have to speculate about biden/harris I’ve been seeing the horror they create on tv for 12 months now.
“My vote can’t end the genocide immediately, so I might as well accelerate it”
What an asshole position.
Removed by mod
You know, at first I was thinking that this is a really bad take. But then I realized something: this is a classic trolley problem.
Sparing the details because you probably already know them, it comes down to a choice: you can do nothing and five people will die, or you can actively perform an action and only one person will die. The only choice you have is to do nothing or do something.
So the problem becomes: which is the morally correct choice? On one hand, does doing nothing absolve you of the five deaths you could have avoided? On the other, does actively participating make you responsible for the one death even if it was to save five?
Back in the real world, you have the same choice. Since voting for a third party that has no chance of winning is functionally equivalent to not voting, it plays out the same way. You can do nothing and the genocide gets worse, or you can actively participate and try to reduce the damage. Which is the moral choice? Which will help you sleep at night?
That is a question philosophers have struggled with for centuries, and there’s no good answer. From my personal perspective, doing nothing IS a choice, so no matter what I do I’m still an active participant. Therefore I will choose to minimize the damage.
Yes, it’s bullshit that the current administration hasn’t takes a tougher stance on the conflict. But it will be worse under Trump, as demonstrated by both his words and his actions when he was last in office. So the question is: which will help you sleep at night: doing nothing and telling yourself that you are not responsible when Trump wins, or doing something even though you know it won’t be enough?
As powerless members of the masses, it’s the best we can do.
Vote for a candidate who has demonstrated in front of my eyes that they will support disgusting mass annihilation of human life
Or
Vote for a candidate who it seems like would be worse on the issue somehow.
I’m accepting your framing but it’s really hard to be more concerned about how hypothetically bad trump will be when Ive been seeing a lot of nonhypothetical horrific mass slaughter for 12 months and the “lesser evil” is regularly defending it on tv
Edit: to be clear I won’t be voting for either genocidal candidate
https://newrepublic.com/post/187332/trump-biden-tough-netanyahu
When Trump says that Biden should not be holding Netanyahu back (regardless of whether or not he is) and that Netanyahu is doing a good job, then it can’t be much more clear that Trump is going to enable even more.
I understand but that’s still pitting trump’s words (which aren’t clear, he’s never said anything specific about what he’d do) against the thousands of pounds of very real bombs that biden/harris have provided for mass slaughter. I believe you that there’s a good chance trump will be worse but once again that’s just speculation whereas I don’t have to speculate about biden/harris I’ve been seeing the horror they create on tv for 12 months now.