Submitted by ADefiniteDescription t3_yor0ro in philosophy
ConsciousLiterature t1_ivl3mhm wrote
Reply to comment by FranksRedWorkAccount in The ethics of voting for the 'lesser of two evils' by ADefiniteDescription
>Not giving to charity so that the charity doesn't have enough money so that one person is ultimately bumped from their services so that they eventually go on to starve is such an insanely far cry from you could have thrown a lever that right then and there would have prevented 5 deaths that they are not equivalent, they aren't even in the same country
I reject this. It's even easier to give to a charity considering they can automatically charge your card on a regular basis.
Same goes for not eating meat. You could do that at any time.
>If you are driving today and someone jumps out in front of you and you could swerve away but you don't are you responsible for that person's death?
Yes. You directly killed somebody using your vehicle.
>That's the real version of the trolley problem.
No the real version of the trolley problem is that you could have voted for gun control but you loved your guns too much.
>You aren't supposed to swerve away from an accident, did you know that?
Who made this rule up?
>If you could avoid hitting another car by swerving away from it, generally, you are supposed to still hit the car because by swerving away you might hit something and then it would be your fault. I
the word "Might" is doing all the heavy lifting in that sentence. Might implies "might not".
>If you, for instance, tried to avoid a deer in the road and thus ended up swinging your car and crossing the yellow line and hitting a car you are liable for the crash where before hitting the deer you might not have been liable and or even if you are liable for that crash you at least didn't hit another car.
I don't think most people have a moral issue with killing a deer.
FranksRedWorkAccount t1_ivl86o4 wrote
how easy something is and how culpable you are have nothing to do with each other. Beating someone to death with a hammer and shooting someone to death with a gun are very different in how much effort they require but you are just as morally wrong for either killing. At least in the context of killing or not and assuming no difference in extenuating circumstances. I don't even know why you would bring up how easy something is in a conversation about morality and culpability of action.
I'm not really sure what you are even trying to get at given these responses nor do I know what you expect responses to be about so I am just going to not really engage here but have a lovely day.
ConsciousLiterature t1_ivlcbz9 wrote
>how easy something is and how culpable you are have nothing to do with each other
Then why did you bring it up?
FranksRedWorkAccount t1_ivld7cx wrote
I didn't. You did.
ConsciousLiterature t1_ivn47mz wrote
Yes you did bring it up.
FranksRedWorkAccount t1_ivnu710 wrote
Before I write you off as absolutely insane do you mind pointing out where you think I said anything about how easy something is being part of the equation?
ConsciousLiterature t1_ivo0h0u wrote
When you talked about pushing a button in front of you vs giving to a charity.
FranksRedWorkAccount t1_ivo1st1 wrote
that wasn't a vs thing. You read that comment wrong. That was me responding to some of your examples. You said "Are you responsible for their death because you didn't give to a charity, or stop eating meat, or failed to take the bus to work?" So I mentioned charity and bus in my response. Those were things you brought up. How easy they were was not in my comment and has nothing to do with culpability.
The point of my original comment has nothing to do with how easy an action is. Only that action and inaction are both still choices and the article makes a false distinction between them. It acts like not voting isn't an active choice but is a passive act. The reason I brought up the trolley problem is because some people argue that not throwing the lever on the trolley and allowing 5 people to die is the right thing to do because you aren't responsible for the trolley traveling down the tracks or the 5 people being on the tracks and so if you let it happen you didn't actively kill those people but if you throw the switch then you are actively doing something and so are responsible for the one person that does die. But this is a false distinction because in the trolley problem choosing to not throw the switch is still a choice. Plus in the real world you didn't just magically appear on the trolley you chose to get on it. To relate this to voting, what the article is about, voting third party is an active choice to not vote for the better of the two most likely to win candidates because you and I and everyone that votes or doesn't vote is part of the system that has taken us to the point where the lesser of two evils is the best choice. We are all responsible for it and so if we choose to vote third party and so a republican wins instead of the democrat that we would prefer over a third party candidate that we would like even better we helped put the republican in office. We cannot pretend that we are not involved in the whole system. We don't just show up on election day and vote as though the rest of the world doesn't exist and that we aren't responsible for parts of it.
ConsciousLiterature t1_ivo23wk wrote
>nly that action and inaction are both still choices and the article makes a false distinction between them.
You killed people today because you drove your car to work instead of taking the bus. You killed people today because you ate meat.
if not doing something causes a death and you are responsible for the action you never took then you are responsible for killing people every day.
No philosophical system worth it's salt should hold people responsible for things they are not responsible for.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments