“But the expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute, fundamental necessity for the United States to have the steady leadership there. You saw it experienced today, where, along with our Israeli partners and our coalition, able to stop the incoming attack. But what’s fundamental here is that steady leadership is going to matter.”
So if someone gives you a gun and tells you to shoot 10 people in the head or they will kill 20 people, you are saying that it’s a moral obligation to shoot the 10 people in the head?
You are morally responsible in some degree for 20 people dying rather than 10. Though, in that example, I seriously doubt that most people would think the moral choice is to shoot the 10 people. Probably because we instinctually know that wouldn’t be the end of it or none of the deaths seem inevitable.
Removed by mod
Removed, you truncated the quote which takes it out of context.
From the VP debate:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-vp-debate-transcript-walz-vance-2024/
“But the expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute, fundamental necessity for the United States to have the steady leadership there. You saw it experienced today, where, along with our Israeli partners and our coalition, able to stop the incoming attack. But what’s fundamental here is that steady leadership is going to matter.”
Democrats are evil scum, no one should be voting for them.
Except the other option is worse. And you are complicit in whoever wins if you don’t vote at all.
One cannot be held accountable for not participating.
Yes, you can. It’s just a trolley problem, and you’re choosing to not flip the switch. It’s still your choice and has consequences.
So if someone gives you a gun and tells you to shoot 10 people in the head or they will kill 20 people, you are saying that it’s a moral obligation to shoot the 10 people in the head?
Have you literally never heard of the trolley problem?
This is what it looks like when the cartoons are replaced with humans.
You are morally responsible in some degree for 20 people dying rather than 10. Though, in that example, I seriously doubt that most people would think the moral choice is to shoot the 10 people. Probably because we instinctually know that wouldn’t be the end of it or none of the deaths seem inevitable.
Do you mean temporarily choosing the lesser evil is not a solution?
Only if there’s solution you can bring about that isn’t one of the evils.
Non sequitur size: belief-beggaring
They are not equivalent situations. More like:
Person A promises to kill 10 people. Person B promises to kill 20 people.
Only one of them will do it, and you choose who. If you refuse to choose, person B will do it. What do you do?
Grow the fuck up.