• Rhoeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      So I’ll use a random what-if/analogy since you seem to love them SO much!

      Imagine a magic elf came down from magic elf land, and made you chose between having an acute health condition and cancer. Do you mean to say that you are totally fine with allowing other people to decide for you- full-well knowing that half of the people deciding are huge fans of cancer and not at all fans of you?

      Because this is your logic mirrored right back back at you.

      Or would you actually give a shit in this case because it will be YOU that’s affected by the outcome.

      Either way-

      You’re getting one regardless. Not choosing doesn’t make the election not happen. But you know this. Don’t you?

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Nope, not supporting the worse evil either.

            Lesser-evilism freqently produces worse results than more coherent strategies and ethical systems.

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              14 minutes ago

              Is this your first presidential election?
              Have you voted in any other elections before?
              Do you even know there are other elections?
              Are you a brick wall, unable to process what other people are telling you?
              Are you even American?
              Do you understand that real life is not a fantasy?

              Answer me these questions six, and a wish .ml shall gift.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            3 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
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 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
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                3 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
                  7
                  ·
                  3 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
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    2 hours ago

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

                • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  2 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.