The notion that Biden represents a lesser evil compared to the chaotic reign of Trump is a common argument. However, we must not forget that there exists a moral threshold below which neither choice is acceptable. To suggest that enabling a literal genocide can be considered a lesser evil is a morally bankrupt stance.
Saying that voting for Biden is a moral obligation to prevent the return of Trump perpetuates a dangerous fallacy. It implies that the democratic party is immune from scrutiny and accountability, no matter the atrocities they commit. This line of thinking allows for a never-ending cycle of justification, as long as there’s somebody considered worse, the democrats are granted a blank check. This is nothing more than a form of gaslighting, manipulating the public into believing that their only choice is between two evils, rather than demanding a better standard of leadership and true representation.
I agree with you on all the ways with which the trolley thought experience falls to reflect reality.
However, the objective isn’t really to reflect reality but rather to elucidate the essence of the moral principle being examined.
The principle in this case I struggle to fully understand is OP’s idea that there is a threshold of evil beyond which lesser of two evils is morally bankrupt to follow. But why should that be the case when direct action can be combined with voting with no effect? In terms of the trolley problem that would be if you could instantaneously pull the lever while simultaneously attempting to get people off or derail the train or sabotaging the track.
You can do that. You can do that by voting third party or abstaining. As i tried to explain to you, these are also choices. These are also levers that you can pull, you are not forced to choose between pulling the red or the blue lever. Choosing such a third option has the beneficial effect of decreasing the legitimacy of the duopoly. The more people that choose to do this, the less believable the claim will be of whoever wins having a “democratic mandate”.
Further, as i have repeatedly tried to explain to you, it is not clear which if any of the two tracks that you think you have to pick from is actually the lesser evil. You axiomatically assume that you know which of those two tracks is less harmful, but you don’t.
Because pulling the lever adds legitmancy to the people who tied those people to the rails and made you choose, you agreed to play there game, you particpiated and are culpable.
This is the first response that I think is actually engaging with my question.
My disagreement stems from not seeing that adding of legitimacy as worth as much as actual people’s lives that are different in count on the different tracks.
It’s okay, I apparently made a faux pas trying to engage to learn here on this issue but this community is clearly more for comradeship like its name suggests rather than outreach. That’s fine, I’m going to discontinue this conversation here as my interjections are clearly unwelcome.
Every single comment in this thread has fully engaged with your question, your inability to percieve that or your ego getting in the way isnt a failure on there parts, I havent seen one take in this thread I dont agree with. Most of them are poking at the american liberal exceptionalism you’re displaying, where you’re presenting this topic as a A:B situation.
The most effective way to save those people wouldnt be an induvidual act of pulling the lever, then running to untie the millions of tied down people. Its organizing into a large collective and dealing with the problem at its origin, not at its symptoms.
Break the tracks, save the people as a collective, no empty solutions that continue to perputate the endless cycle of violence.
You have received a lot of attention and information. What do you expect, for people to bend over backwards to talk to you about this on your terms? What person who takes learning seriously does this? Do you show up to a classroom and leave if the teacher does not re-frame their lecture on physics into the trolley problem? “Outreach” does not mean you change nothing about yourself and everyone else changes what they’re doing for you. You could receive the ideal maximum of compassion, patience, and clarity of thought and word, but if you are only willing to approach it on your terms, then no matter what you tell yourself about your intent, the substance of your actions is that of reinforcing what you already believe, not learning.
And I am speaking from some experience here. I did not always have the views that I do and one of the most important things in changing that was doing more listening to people who are better informed. Philosophical questions like the trolley problem gives people a false sense of competence in understanding a given issue; that as long as you can abstract a problem to its component parts, you can overcome any ignorance of it and arrive at the correct position. This is not so. You must understand what is happening correctly, so that you can properly generalize. If your information on the fundamentals is incorrect, attempting to generalize will only obfuscate rather than clarify and give a false sense of confidence in your position.