You're viewing part of a thread.
What will you achieve? Like genuinely explain the material change that your vote for a third party will achieve, other than making trump more likely to win.
the ethics of an action are not in the consequences, they are in the action itself. voting for bad people is bad.
One day you’ll grow up and understand how silly and counterproductive this is. I hope.
your personal attacks don't undermine deontological ethics
In a perfect world this would be a good strategy, but in the real world we have to vote in the way that gets us closest to the way we want the world to be, even though it is likely going to have its own problems. I would love for a third party candidate to win the presidency, that would be a huge step, but it is not going to happen any time soon. Voting for a third party right now is not a vote against the main candidates, it's a vote of indifference, it's saying "I don't care who wins". If trump wins it will only take us further away from a country where a third party can ever win, biden may do that as well, but it won't be by as much. I know biden isn't a good person, but we cannot let trump win again and biden is the only one who stands a chance against him. I know biden has caused a lot of harm, but I also am very worried that the US will no longer be a safe place for me and the people I care about if trump wins.
"in the real world" is a thought terminating cliche
I don't vote as a strategy. I vote for the person I want to win
https://lemmy.world/comment/8493642
Funny thing, I was just told that progressive idealism is a lie implying along the thread that people don't make reactionary votes out of ideological purity not too long ago.
I don't understand what you are saying or your links relevance
So I'll preface by saying that I feel that a majority of the sudden outrage of 'genocode Joe' has the feel of an astroturfing campaign. Knowing that the viable alternative in Trump would not only continue but likely escalate the situation to prove some tough guy status, the push to disengage or vote 3rd party does nothing to meaningfully fix the problem.
That said, from a philosophical stace then the only benefit to staying home or voting for a more perfect candidate who has no chance to win given the current system is to give oneself a morally/ethically pure standpoint. The 'I didn't contribute to the problem' position. This might give a person some self assurance that they haven't compromised their integrity, but that personal warm fuzzy won't stop the bombs and bring back dead babies. In fact, by making it that much more likely that a second Trump term comes to fruition they've actually exacerbated the problem.
The perfect being the enemy of the better (note that I don't proclaim good) opens the gate for greater harm.
the sudden outrage of ‘genocode Joe’ has the feel of an astroturfing campaign.
this is vague. is there something concrete that you can point to? vibes aren't very convincing to me.
Thinking that voting according to your ethics is totally and completely disconnected from the consequences is a privilege not everyone has. Your ideological purity might have the consequences of harming more marginalized people because in your search for an angel, you believed it was better to vote for the devil than a sinner.
Unless you’re telling me that you think your third-party candidates are absolutely perfect, you’re already voting in degrees of “less bad.” Why wouldn’t you vote for the “less bad” that is more likely to win?
Your ideological purity
I'm not advocating for purity so I don't need perfect candidates. I'll be happy if they just aren't racist war criminals.
I think Cornel West is a good person and I think Jill Stein is a good person. so I'm probably going to vote for one of them. I think Biden and Trump are bad people, so I won't be voting for either of them.
Thinking that voting according to your ethics is totally and completely disconnected from the consequences is a privilege not everyone has.
everyone can accept deontological ethics and choose to act in accordance with the categorical imperative. it takes no privilege at all.
It’s a privilege when you choose your ethics model over the real life consequences of others.
not doing the right thing because you're afraid of the consequences is cowardice.
Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.
I am a straight, cis, white male with a roof over my head, food in my refrigerator, and dogs I can afford to take to the vet. In your solipsistic worldview, there are hardly any consequences that I would have to face if Trump were elected. I’m choosing compassion.
In your mind, what is even the point of your ethics if it isn’t rooted in caring for and about other people.
what is even the point of your ethics if it isn't rooted in caring for and about other people.
that's what it is for me, but, again, i'm a deontologist (i think. i have been leaning toward nihilsm lately but it would be swell to be pulled back from that).
Well if it’s any help, Carl Sagan’s pale blue dot helps me to remember to be kinder to people. While understand how the vast emptiness of the Universe could make someone feel cold and alone, and like nothing really matters, most of the time, it encourages me to have a greater appreciation for everyone that is here. I don’t know if it comes from an evolutionary instinct to persist and extend my existence, or something else, but the rarity of life makes me root for us more. And I guess that’s why I believe living beings matter, and why I won’t accept an ethical paradigm that ignores consequences that hurt people.
I mean I agree with you that it is always the right time to do the right thing, but at some point, the rubber meets the road and lives are affected. Maybe the “right” thing to do is to teach a man to fish, but maybe I do that tomorrow once the man has the strength to cast a net, and for today, I just give him a fish. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
Anyway, I’m glad the tone of our conversation seems to be in a better place now than when we started.