• 0 Posts
  • 117 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 27th, 2023

help-circle

  • 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.


  • 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.


  • I don’t really get OP’s stance but I don’t feel like I’m getting much honest engagement from anyone here that’s holding that stance. Just down votes and blow off responses which make me wonder why I’m bothering to have an open mind on this issue instead of just scrolling by.

    OP talked about how there is a certain level of evil where supporting becomes morally bankrupt even if the two sides aren’t the same. Your formulation lacks that completely. One side has genocide, the other side has genocide and destruction of the environment and persecution of LGBTQIA+ and a lot of other substantive things not found on the first side.

    I’m being genuine here but on the verge of rolling my eyes and walking away from learning here. Is there a simplified formulation that is in the widely understood philosophical trolley format that can help me understand the position?




  • 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.

    How would you apply your reasoning on the trolley problem? I.e. on one track there are two anonymous people and on the other track there is one, the trolley is heading towards the two. Is it unethical to pull the lever to divert it because killing anyone is morally unacceptable?









  • Meanwhile, Representative Elise Stefanik—the star browbeater of the hearings on campus antisemitism called by the House Education and Workforce Committee—has been gunning forthe resignation of Columbia President Nemat (Minouche) Shafik (a matter that is not the purview of politicians, but of faculty, administrators, and trustees).

    It’s funny how even after kowtowing to right wing demands, she faces demands to resign not only from the left that she sicced the police on, but also the right that she has been groveling towards.