Voting third party, or not voting, is choosing inaction. It’s still a choice. The basic trolley problem of the trolley will kill 10 people if you don’t pull the lever but 1 if you do is analogous to this. Choosing to not divert the trolley is still a choice. However, you’re not culpable for the fact that people are tied to the rails in general. You’re only accountable for the thing you had power over.
We don’t have the ability to have a third candidate elected, or to change the candidates who are running. We can only elect one of the two. It’s really very simple. It’s the absolute basic thing you’ll learn in probably the first day of an ethics course. If you can’t understand the bare minimum, we’ll I don’t know what to say except that I’m sorry. It is pretty weird to argue you have the moral high ground and to struggle with basic ethics though.
Edit to add: There are also other actions you can take outside of voting to try to change opinion and create action that agrees with you. Do those. However, I promise one of the two candidates will never listen to you, and most likely will make it hard to impossible to take these other actions.
Ah yes, the first day in ethics they tell you how the Trolley Problem has one objective answer that everyone agrees with. You have clearly, definitely attended an ethics class.
The trolley problem famously has a near infinite number of variations to tease out people’s ethical boundaries. The first basic one is the starting point. It’s a point pretty much everyone agrees on. Theoretically you could disagree, but I’ve never seen it. Everyone almost always understands that more people dying is bad, and that pulling a lever is a minimal action that you should feel obligated to pull if it saves lives.
The variation where you push someone onto the tracks to stop the trolley? There are lots of disagreements about that, because you’re actively killing someone to save lives. That’s not so with the lever.
Edit to add: Yes, I have taken ethics courses. I had a professor who was in the CIA, which led to some interesting discussions of ethics, as I’m sure you can imagine.
It’s not something “pretty much everyone agrees on.” There’s an entire branch of moral philosophy, deontology, that completely disagrees with pulling the lever in the original problem, but there’s also plenty of other philosophies that could say the same, such as rule utilitarianism. Do not try to tell me I don’t know basic ethics when you’ve never even heard of a major school of thought.
The entire purpose of the trolley problem is to highlight disagreements between different branches of moral philosophy, and to interrogate our moral intuitions. The fact that it seems better to pull the lever doesn’t necessarily mean that it is better, especially when, as you mentioned, there are follow up to the thought experiment where the intuitive answer is the opposite.
No offense but an ethics professor who was in the CIA sounds like the setup to a bad joke. If you were taught about the trolley problem in an ethics class, and the things I just said weren’t mentioned, then you were taught poorly. The purpose of such a class is not to give you objective right-or-wrong answers, it’s to inform you about a variety of perspectives and encourage you to identify and question your preconceived beliefs.
Do not try to tell me I don’t know basic ethics when you’ve never even heard of a major school of thought.
OK buddy, I have. Thanks. So I’ll continue.
The entire purpose of the trolley problem is to highlight disagreements between different branches of moral philosophy, and to interrogate our moral intuitions.
As I said. Right. We start with a basic problem and diverge from there to see where the point you decide to not divert the trolley appears. If you don’t ever want to divert the trolley then there’s no point.
No offense but an ethics professor who was in the CIA sounds like the setup to a bad joke, and I’d ask you to appreciate my restraint in not clowning on that.
Which is why I mentioned it… You’re a strange one. It was interesting because he had knowledge of some pretty controversial ethical decisions that actually made for good lessons. Basically the trolley problem in real life, and where the actions were pretty fucked up.
But if you were taught about the trolley problem in an ethics class, and the things I just said weren’t mentioned, then you were taught poorly.
I brought them up… What?
The purpose of such a class is not to give you objective right-or-wrong answers, it’s to inform you about a variety of perspectives and encourage you to identify and question your preconceived beliefs.
Correct. However, we start from a position that we generally all agree on or we don’t get anywhere. We can ignore the people who want people to die because they aren’t really thinking about ethics, at least not in a sense almost anyone else would agree with. The basic trolley problem is the starting point because the vast majority of people will agree with pulling the lever because it’s the only reasonable option.
If you don’t ever want to divert the trolley then there’s no point.
That is incredibly untrue. There’s plenty of point to the problem highlighting differences between moral frameworks that tell you to pull the lever and those that don’t. Again, you were taught about this incorrectly. I believe Phillipa Foot said that that was a major reason why she created the thought experiment. Doubling down on “deontology doesn’t exist” just makes you look even more ignorant.
Which is why I mentioned it… You’re a strange one. It was interesting because he had knowledge of some pretty controversial ethical decisions that actually made for good lessons. Basically the trolley problem in real life, and where the actions were pretty fucked up.
Are you trying to self-own? The CIA has done all sorts of obviously unethical stuff (often justifying it with the framework you just presented) and working for the CIA is inherently unethical. It’s like saying you studied ethics under Sauron. It’s no surprise that he would teach you all sorts of wrong ideas and bad ways of thinking about things.
Dude… your spend all day smearing the walls of lemmy with pseudo-intellectual rhetoric! How can you sit there all smug and sarcastically accuse others of attending an ethics class.
In five days, Everyone knows you are going to vanish from here. Frankly, I’m amazed anyone is taking you seriously at all.
I don’t see how my internet addiction has anything to do with the fact that y’all possess complete ignorance of basic ethics while accusing everyone you disagree with of the same.
Voting third party, or not voting, is choosing inaction. It’s still a choice. The basic trolley problem of the trolley will kill 10 people if you don’t pull the lever but 1 if you do is analogous to this. Choosing to not divert the trolley is still a choice. However, you’re not culpable for the fact that people are tied to the rails in general. You’re only accountable for the thing you had power over.
We don’t have the ability to have a third candidate elected, or to change the candidates who are running. We can only elect one of the two. It’s really very simple. It’s the absolute basic thing you’ll learn in probably the first day of an ethics course. If you can’t understand the bare minimum, we’ll I don’t know what to say except that I’m sorry. It is pretty weird to argue you have the moral high ground and to struggle with basic ethics though.
Edit to add: There are also other actions you can take outside of voting to try to change opinion and create action that agrees with you. Do those. However, I promise one of the two candidates will never listen to you, and most likely will make it hard to impossible to take these other actions.
Ah yes, the first day in ethics they tell you how the Trolley Problem has one objective answer that everyone agrees with. You have clearly, definitely attended an ethics class.
Dunning-Kruger in full effect here.
The trolley problem famously has a near infinite number of variations to tease out people’s ethical boundaries. The first basic one is the starting point. It’s a point pretty much everyone agrees on. Theoretically you could disagree, but I’ve never seen it. Everyone almost always understands that more people dying is bad, and that pulling a lever is a minimal action that you should feel obligated to pull if it saves lives.
The variation where you push someone onto the tracks to stop the trolley? There are lots of disagreements about that, because you’re actively killing someone to save lives. That’s not so with the lever.
Edit to add: Yes, I have taken ethics courses. I had a professor who was in the CIA, which led to some interesting discussions of ethics, as I’m sure you can imagine.
It’s not something “pretty much everyone agrees on.” There’s an entire branch of moral philosophy, deontology, that completely disagrees with pulling the lever in the original problem, but there’s also plenty of other philosophies that could say the same, such as rule utilitarianism. Do not try to tell me I don’t know basic ethics when you’ve never even heard of a major school of thought.
The entire purpose of the trolley problem is to highlight disagreements between different branches of moral philosophy, and to interrogate our moral intuitions. The fact that it seems better to pull the lever doesn’t necessarily mean that it is better, especially when, as you mentioned, there are follow up to the thought experiment where the intuitive answer is the opposite.
No offense but an ethics professor who was in the CIA sounds like the setup to a bad joke. If you were taught about the trolley problem in an ethics class, and the things I just said weren’t mentioned, then you were taught poorly. The purpose of such a class is not to give you objective right-or-wrong answers, it’s to inform you about a variety of perspectives and encourage you to identify and question your preconceived beliefs.
OK buddy, I have. Thanks. So I’ll continue.
As I said. Right. We start with a basic problem and diverge from there to see where the point you decide to not divert the trolley appears. If you don’t ever want to divert the trolley then there’s no point.
Which is why I mentioned it… You’re a strange one. It was interesting because he had knowledge of some pretty controversial ethical decisions that actually made for good lessons. Basically the trolley problem in real life, and where the actions were pretty fucked up.
I brought them up… What?
Correct. However, we start from a position that we generally all agree on or we don’t get anywhere. We can ignore the people who want people to die because they aren’t really thinking about ethics, at least not in a sense almost anyone else would agree with. The basic trolley problem is the starting point because the vast majority of people will agree with pulling the lever because it’s the only reasonable option.
That is incredibly untrue. There’s plenty of point to the problem highlighting differences between moral frameworks that tell you to pull the lever and those that don’t. Again, you were taught about this incorrectly. I believe Phillipa Foot said that that was a major reason why she created the thought experiment. Doubling down on “deontology doesn’t exist” just makes you look even more ignorant.
Are you trying to self-own? The CIA has done all sorts of obviously unethical stuff (often justifying it with the framework you just presented) and working for the CIA is inherently unethical. It’s like saying you studied ethics under Sauron. It’s no surprise that he would teach you all sorts of wrong ideas and bad ways of thinking about things.
You brought up deontology, did you?
You got wrecked on your own ethics lessons! That had to hurt a bit!
Dude… your spend all day smearing the walls of lemmy with pseudo-intellectual rhetoric! How can you sit there all smug and sarcastically accuse others of attending an ethics class.
In five days, Everyone knows you are going to vanish from here. Frankly, I’m amazed anyone is taking you seriously at all.
I don’t see how my internet addiction has anything to do with the fact that y’all possess complete ignorance of basic ethics while accusing everyone you disagree with of the same.
The irony in this statement is nothing short of heaven manifested through words! Thank you so much for having said it! It’s fucking beautiful!
You’re welcome! Not sure what about it is ironic but I’m glad you enjoyed it so much!