Abstaining from voting makes you somewhat complicit in whoever wins. You have the ability to affect the outcome with whatever choice you make (Harris, Trump, neither). If you choose neither, it is partially your fault the winner won as you could have voted against them.
It can be boiled down to a classic trolley problem. A greater harm the trolley is hurling towards, a lesser harm you could divert the trolley to. You can choose inaction and let the greater harm happen or you can choose action and cause the lesser harm. Most people think the lesser harm, even if they enact it, is better. But it’s a classic morality problem for a reason. Some people view the action to cause the lesser harm as less moral even if it prevents the greater harm.
In the classic trolley problem, if you do nothing then the murderer is the person who tied the people to the tracks. You are not using that analogy correctly.
Even if they did hit a switch, they bear no responsibility for who is murdered. Again thats to the person who created the situation.
I have never heard that interpretation. Everyone I’ve ever seen talking about it agrees that if you flip the switch, you are complicit. Why else would there even be a discussion of if you should or not?
You can have that discussion but neither makes a person a murderer, thats the point. Much like a person who refuses to vote for a democrat or republican is not genocidal.
Besides all that, there is no consensus that the democrat track is less genocidal than the republican track. Try the trolley problem again but with equal life on each side.
Abstaining from voting makes you somewhat complicit in whoever wins. You have the ability to affect the outcome with whatever choice you make (Harris, Trump, neither). If you choose neither, it is partially your fault the winner won as you could have voted against them.
It can be boiled down to a classic trolley problem. A greater harm the trolley is hurling towards, a lesser harm you could divert the trolley to. You can choose inaction and let the greater harm happen or you can choose action and cause the lesser harm. Most people think the lesser harm, even if they enact it, is better. But it’s a classic morality problem for a reason. Some people view the action to cause the lesser harm as less moral even if it prevents the greater harm.
In the classic trolley problem, if you do nothing then the murderer is the person who tied the people to the tracks. You are not using that analogy correctly.
Even if they did hit a switch, they bear no responsibility for who is murdered. Again thats to the person who created the situation.
I have never heard that interpretation. Everyone I’ve ever seen talking about it agrees that if you flip the switch, you are complicit. Why else would there even be a discussion of if you should or not?
You can have that discussion but neither makes a person a murderer, thats the point. Much like a person who refuses to vote for a democrat or republican is not genocidal.
Besides all that, there is no consensus that the democrat track is less genocidal than the republican track. Try the trolley problem again but with equal life on each side.
Except if you flip the switch while the trolley is halfway (front wheels have passed, rear one haven’t). Then you derail the trolley and nobody dies.