• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Sure. Ethically speaking, anyone who’s not an act utilitarian will accept the “greater evil” in some circumstances, and if you don’t, it leads to some absurd conclusions, like chopping up a healthy person to get organ transplants to save five. Another example would be, “If you don’t kill someone for me, I’ll kill two people.” I can’t prevent every bad thing from happening, but I can control my own actions and choose not to be a party to bad things.

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Got it. Voting, in your mind, is akin to two different examples of murder.

      It sounds to me like you’d opt out of giving someone the Heimlich maneuver so as not to bruise their abdomen, letting them choke to death.

      I can control my own actions and choose not to be a party to bad things

      You can pretend to opt out but not voting or voting third is a choice not to help prevent the worse outcome. You’ve participated in bringing that to fruition.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I thought you were asking for why one would be accept a greater evil, generally speaking, so I demonstrated why lesser evilism is not automatically the correct position.

        You’ve participated in bringing that to fruition.

        Nope, that is blatantly false. Not voting for either major candidate, so by definition I haven’t participated in getting either of them elected.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Sure.

          And a doctor who refuses to participate in the harm of removing a limb letting the person die from gangrene is “not participating” and not responsible for the outcome.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Whether he’s responsible is one thing, but claiming that the doctor participated in giving him gangrene would be completely absurd.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              No. You’ve incorrectly identified what I implied the doctor has participated in. You’d like for me to have said the doc somehow gave the person gangrene but I didn’t and did not imply that.

              The doctor did however participate in letting a person die. He could have done otherwise but chose not to.

              You see, removing a limb is a harm and he just can’t bring himself to do it. He will sleep soundly knowing he did no harm.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                You said that I participated in “Bringing that to fruition” not in “letting that happen.”

                “Participating in letting something happen” is a very odd turn of phrase. The definition of participate (per google) is, “take part in an action or endeavour.” If what you’re doing is not taking part in an action, then you aren’t participating, by definition.

                If someone on the other side of the world starves to death, are you a participant in that?

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  We’re comparing voting, which I can do, to helping someone I don’t know exists on the other side of the world?

                  Thanks for the thread bud. Plenty here for people to see your thought process. It sucks by the way.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    There’s information about world hunger available on the web, I don’t see how choosing not to be informed about it absolves you of responsibility.

                • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  For more smug ethics lessons. Press 1 or say: “Bore me to death.”

        • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          know that there will still be an election, right? Not voting simply says you’re fine with either candidate winning. Which clearly shows your entitlement as you must not have much to worry about. It’s this, or you don’t even live in the states.

          So pick one:

          1. You’re okay with either because you’re entitled and won’t suffer under either and don’t care at all about those that will. Or…
          2. You don’t live in America and therefore are here in bad faith to disrupt an election.