“Oh but she’s bad because some reason, you’re better of not voting and just lying belly up so fascists can ruin everything faster” , “the democrats are just the same as republicans, so we shouldn’t even try anything”, “I won’t support genocide so I won’t oppose even more genocide”, “it doesn’t matter anymore we can’t do anything, it’ll be better if we let the fascists win and wait until everything is in ruins”
Then people arguing against
That’s about how these comment sections always go lmao
It’s really interesting watching discussions about the trolley problem in abstract vs the problem in praxis. Because the thought experiment is about inaction (letting the runaway train crash into the group of people) on one hand and harm reduction (switching tracks) on the other.
The thing that I find fascinating is that with the thought experiment (basically) everyone says the answer is clear: switch tracks. But in the applied scenario of voting picking the lesser evil somehow stains your hands more than not voting.
It’s the moral purism vs. harm reduction conflict. A moral purist will not accept any compromises because they value their personal moral values over everything else, while someone holding harm reduction stances will accept compromises (the lesser evil) even if it morally stains them, to get better actual results. This means a moral purist is okay with letting the greater evil win as long as their own moral purity stays intact
(and the paradox of moral purism is that they in reality go against their own ideals, by letting the greater evil win)
“Oh but she’s bad because some reason, you’re better of not voting and just lying belly up so fascists can ruin everything faster” , “the democrats are just the same as republicans, so we shouldn’t even try anything”, “I won’t support genocide so I won’t oppose even more genocide”, “it doesn’t matter anymore we can’t do anything, it’ll be better if we let the fascists win and wait until everything is in ruins”
Then people arguing against
That’s about how these comment sections always go lmao
I’m not voting for AOC because I’m voting for AOB, the prototype
I’m holding out for AOEII.
It’s really interesting watching discussions about the trolley problem in abstract vs the problem in praxis. Because the thought experiment is about inaction (letting the runaway train crash into the group of people) on one hand and harm reduction (switching tracks) on the other.
The thing that I find fascinating is that with the thought experiment (basically) everyone says the answer is clear: switch tracks. But in the applied scenario of voting picking the lesser evil somehow stains your hands more than not voting.
It’s the moral purism vs. harm reduction conflict. A moral purist will not accept any compromises because they value their personal moral values over everything else, while someone holding harm reduction stances will accept compromises (the lesser evil) even if it morally stains them, to get better actual results. This means a moral purist is okay with letting the greater evil win as long as their own moral purity stays intact
(and the paradox of moral purism is that they in reality go against their own ideals, by letting the greater evil win)