Your example doesn’t fit since it doesn’t involve doing something myself (as opposed to something happening to me) and there is no morality involved the choices.
The reason I wouldn’t do something evil to try to prevent something even more evil, is because I don’t believe in doing evil things, even with good intentions. Sometimes I think it’s better to just let the trolley do its thing, rather than getting involved, if there are no good choices.
Lets take your scenario of not voting for fascist-lite as a means to fight against Full-Fat fascist.
In the current American system ( the greatest and most functional system /s), not voting effectively gives the vote to the eventual victor (that’s reductive but you know what I mean)
Assuming the BigFash win, the choice of inaction would be more impactful than the action of voting for DietFash.
On a relative scale and depending on how you feel about fascism I suppose.
So yes the participation and outcome matter but the effect isn’t always equal.
Inactively participating in the rise of the GrandMasterFash would be the cost of feeling good about not actively voting for the LesserFash.
Ultimately it’s shit choices all around, but that’s the point of the lesser of two evils, right?
I mean I understand the cause and effect, but that’s not what the question was about. It was about morality. And I’ve explained how I feel about that.
What if fascist A plans to kill innocent group X and fascist B plans to kill innocent group Y, but group X is more people? Should I vote for fascist B then? How would you explain that to group Y, that is now being killed because of your choice, but would have been fine otherwise? Do you think they will be okay with your numbers argument?
That’s an extreme example, but I never said I would allow a fascist to win, because I disliked the other candidate’s policy on public transit, just that there is a line somewhere that I won’t cross, even if it means a somehow “less bad” outcome.
Inaction that causes a harm is an action. Say for example you’re a muslim that doesn’t vote for a female candidate because you feel she doesn’t do enough to help your people. If the other candidate actively allows great harm to your people, you failing to vote for the female candidate is helping empower the harm on your people.
I just hope we never see this example in real life.
That a disingenuous reply at best, the choice is clearly “person doesn’t do enough to help your people” vs “person who actively allows great harm to your people”.
The example could probably have done with being gender neutral, but even so.
I’m not sure why you zeroed in on the female part and not the “doesn’t do enough to help your people” part.
I thought the implication was that a muslim wouldn’t vote for a woman, because she is a woman. Re-reading it, I understand the comment to be an implicit reference to the last US presidential election and Harris’ stance on Israel/Gaza. Not being American myself, I don’t really have much to say about that particular dilemma.
Your example doesn’t fit since it doesn’t involve doing something myself (as opposed to something happening to me) and there is no morality involved the choices.
The reason I wouldn’t do something evil to try to prevent something even more evil, is because I don’t believe in doing evil things, even with good intentions. Sometimes I think it’s better to just let the trolley do its thing, rather than getting involved, if there are no good choices.
Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.
One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.
It’s very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.
The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.
Yes. But what I’m trying to say is that whether you are an active participant in the outcome matters too, not just the outcome itself.
I don’t disagree in principle.
Lets take your scenario of not voting for fascist-lite as a means to fight against Full-Fat fascist.
In the current American system ( the greatest and most functional system /s), not voting effectively gives the vote to the eventual victor (that’s reductive but you know what I mean)
Assuming the BigFash win, the choice of inaction would be more impactful than the action of voting for DietFash.
On a relative scale and depending on how you feel about fascism I suppose.
So yes the participation and outcome matter but the effect isn’t always equal.
Inactively participating in the rise of the GrandMasterFash would be the cost of feeling good about not actively voting for the LesserFash.
Ultimately it’s shit choices all around, but that’s the point of the lesser of two evils, right?
I mean I understand the cause and effect, but that’s not what the question was about. It was about morality. And I’ve explained how I feel about that.
What if fascist A plans to kill innocent group X and fascist B plans to kill innocent group Y, but group X is more people? Should I vote for fascist B then? How would you explain that to group Y, that is now being killed because of your choice, but would have been fine otherwise? Do you think they will be okay with your numbers argument?
That’s an extreme example, but I never said I would allow a fascist to win, because I disliked the other candidate’s policy on public transit, just that there is a line somewhere that I won’t cross, even if it means a somehow “less bad” outcome.
As i said, i don’t disagree in principle.
All i was saying in that response was that inaction should also be factored in to any consideration of morality.
Inaction that causes a harm is an action. Say for example you’re a muslim that doesn’t vote for a female candidate because you feel she doesn’t do enough to help your people. If the other candidate actively allows great harm to your people, you failing to vote for the female candidate is helping empower the harm on your people.
I just hope we never see this example in real life.
That’s a terrible example. I was talking about having a choice between two evils and not an evil and a woman.
That a disingenuous reply at best, the choice is clearly “person doesn’t do enough to help your people” vs “person who actively allows great harm to your people”.
The example could probably have done with being gender neutral, but even so.
I’m not sure why you zeroed in on the female part and not the “doesn’t do enough to help your people” part.
I thought the implication was that a muslim wouldn’t vote for a woman, because she is a woman. Re-reading it, I understand the comment to be an implicit reference to the last US presidential election and Harris’ stance on Israel/Gaza. Not being American myself, I don’t really have much to say about that particular dilemma.
Yeah, re-reading it myself , it was a weird example and that may have been where they were going with it.