• electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Maybe I will vote for someone who is against genocide. I know they won’t win, but I will not vote for genocide. If someone told me I had to shoot one baby, or else they would shoot two babies, I still wouldn’t shoot the one baby. I can’t do anything to stop the genocide, but that doesn’t mean I have to support it.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      What if someone gives you the choice between them shooting one baby, or them shooting two? That’s more analogous to our situation. Would you simply refuse to participate, increasing the chance of both babies dying, or would you make the choice for only one and accept some responsibility? It’s basically the trolley problem.

      • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        We could surely further improve the analogy, but let’s not. No, I wouldn’t choose. For one, that is a sick game. Secondly, why would I even trust this person to not just keep shooting babies anyway?

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Unironically yes, obviously I would refuse to participate in this baby murderer’s game. I’m not going to say, “Please only kill one baby,” I’m going to spit on his face and tell him to go to hell. And then he’s going to murder as many babies as he wants, as he was going to do anyway.

        • 0xD@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          The choice (even if the comparison really doesn’t fit) is between one person going to kill one baby and the other person killing five. You’re complicit if the second person wins because you’re more concerned with suckling on your own genitals about how smart and principled you are instead of dealing with reality.

          It’s really as simple as that, and no amount of your self-aggrandizing mental gymnastics are going to change that.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            You’re complicit if the second person wins

            If doing nothing for someone counts as support, then you can rest assured that Biden will have my support.

          • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            You’re mostly correct, but there’s something I need to point out:

            Being “complicit” isn’t a feature of consequentialism, and it’s not a feature of the universe either. If you’re doing utility calculus (which here you are) factoring in whether you’ll be “complicit” essentially boils down to putting your self-image on the scales determining the lives of others.

            • 0xD@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I don’t understand your last part, what do you mean with “projecting one’s self-image”?

              • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Placing one’s self image. It’s part of the scales metaphor.

                If you take into consideration if you are “complicit” you are using how you will think about yourself as a factor in the utility calculus. I suppose you’re also thinking about what how other people are perceiving you as well. Does that answer your question?

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I guess I just don’t understand why someone would do this. I mean if I had a gun I’d also just shoot the murderer, but assassination is “illegal” and “a federal crime” so unfortunately that’s not an option.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            In this hypothetical, because I refuse to give him the satisfaction of cooperating in any way. If he knows that he can get me to do things by threatening to kill babies, then I’m just encouraging him to threaten to kill babies.

            I’m not trying to “talk tough,” there are situations where I would cooperate with a hostage taker, but murdering babies is a red line, for me personally.