this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
886 points (95.7% liked)
Aged Like Milk
396 readers
2 users here now
A community dedicated to all those things in media and elsewhere that didn’t stand the test of time, at all.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes. I'm also aware that virtually every country on earth has elections, including undemocratic ones. Our elections have been more about spectacle and entertainment since well before Trump. They're also a very useful tool. If you asked a person in a vacuum whether they support genocide, or any of the other awful stuff our politicians get up to, they'd say no. But once you introduce team sports into it, once you get everybody to make a choice, now they feel like they have to defend that choice and justify the horrible things their team does. And so at all times, about a third of the population become active advocates for the ruling class, justifying and explaining everything that they do. Because if I criticize the president, I'm also criticizing their decision to vote for that president, and how about I fuck off with that, bub?
It's all just fear mongering and performatively demonstrating how much faith you have in electoralism. And it's stupid because when the elections do happen, you'll have discredited yourself, looking like the boy who cried wolf. I don't think there's any way I'm going to break through this nonsense so we'll just have to wait a bit until I'm proven right, by which point of course everyone will have moved on to something else and won't care.
And the whole thing is especially stupid, because there are literally wolves right there! How about we focus on the tyranny and oppression that's actually, already happening? On the masked fascist thugs raiding workplaces and dragging people away to secret torture dungeons? Is that not bad enough that you need to conjure up some unlikely, imagined scenario to fret over? I stg.
Greenland, no. But to act like the Democrats aren't involved in imperialism, plunder, and genocide in other places is absurd. I'm not willing to sacrifice those other countries and people for the sake of Greenland, or for my own sake, or for the sake of my neighbors.
In my view, genocide is completely off the table in the range of solutions I'm willing to consider. I'll oppose the right by whatever means are available to me, but that's simply not an option.
If you want to argue that I have a moral responsibility to aid other countries and ensure their safety and security, maybe to some extent that's true. But any such positive moral duty certainly does not outweigh my negative moral duty to not actively fuck with other countries, to not be the danger I'm supposed to be preventing. "First, do no harm." If protecting Finland requires me to support the wanton slaughter of innocent Palestinians, then you're on your own. If protecting Palestinians meant actively supporting the wanton slaughter of Finns, then I would say the same thing.
I strongly disagree with the claim that voting third party or not voting is "the same as voting for Trump." By that logic, it's also the same as voting for Harris. It's complete and total nonsense.
The fact that this question is taking place within the medium of electoralism does not fundamentally change what the question is, asking me to vote for a genocidaire is no different than asking me to commit genocide with my own hands. There have been countless times in history where someone said that it was ok to do genocide for the sake of some kind of greater good, or protecting some other group of people or whatever else. Every one of those times, we look back and say that they were wrong. There has never once in history where committing genocide has been the morally correct choice, nor has there ever been a group of people that we can look back and say, "If only they were less reluctant to engage in genocide, everything would've turned out better."
If I go down as one of the people who was too reluctant to use genocide in order to advance their own interests, I'm not going to be particularly bothered by that.
I don't have the power to fix every problem in the world. What I do have the power to do is to ensure that I do not become a problem that needs to be fixed, myself.
I genuinely can't comprehend your perspective at all. You said you were "baffled" that people didn't agree with your position, when your position is that supporting genocide is not merely morally permissible, but morally obligatory. I struggle to even imagine a contrived hypothetical scenario where that would be a defensible position, much less one where it would be obvious that genocide is morally obligatory. It's absurd.
Maybe take a philosophy class sometime.
If you have a major in philosophy, then surely you're aware that there are plenty of moral systems that argue against pulling the lever in the trolley problem, and the many critiques of it that exist. Surely you couldn't have spent years studying philosophy and walked away with the conclusion, "Act Utilitarianism is obviously objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees must be too stupid to understand it."
You are making me seriously reconsider my impression of Finland's educational system.
Every hotshot freshman walks into Philosophy 101 thinking that everybody else's ideas are "ideological" while theirs are just "common sense" (nevermind that they all believe different things). If the professor does their job properly, and the students aren't completely obstinate, then they will leave Philosophy 101 understanding that this is not a valid way of understanding anything.
Anyone who claims that everyone else is operating based on ideology and they are not, is simply unaware of their own ideology. And being unaware of it, that ideology has a far greater hold on them than it otherwise might.
The Trolley Problem isn't even meant to have a definite answer. The thought experiment was developed for the explicit purpose of demonstrating how people's moral intuitions differ, as do different schools of moral philosophy. To think, "Pulling the level is obviously objectively correct, and this is a non-ideological claim" is completely and utterly absurd and demonstrates total ignorance of moral philosophy.
What do you think the point of philosophy even is if all it's theories can be dismissed as "ideological" and your own personal "common sense" is a reliable way of determining truth?
You're trying to argue that my position is not empathetic, but that's nonsense. It is empathetic towards Palestinians, who are, contrary to popular beliefs, "actual living humans." You want to build societies off of empathetic principles, alright, first step lets all agree that we shouldn't slaughter innocent people or support anyone who does.
See, your stance may be ethical, moral even, in that you're trying to follow this abstract principle about minimizing harm. But your problem is that you think that those ideas are what matters, while you ignore the real human suffering that's resulting from those ideas.
See, I can play that game too! Almost as if you're still trying to assign special status to your own "common sense" beliefs and refusing to place them on the same level of other people's ideas and allowing them to be subject to critical examination.
Where I come from, morality and ethics refer to what you should and shouldn't do. To say, "You acted in a way that was morally correct and kept yourself morally pure, but you shouldn't have" is self-contradictory nonsense.
What you ought to be saying is that you believe my theory of ethics is incorrect and that yours is correct. But to say that would mean that you would have to admit that you have a specific theory of ethics (such as Act Utilitarianism) which would then be open to critique. And returning to the original point, if you accept that you are operating on a specific theory of ethics with a specific set of assumptions, then there's not really any reason to be "baffled" that other people don't follow it, maybe they simply don't subscribe to the same assumptions about ethics that you do.
But what you're doing instead is ceding to me that my ethical positions are correct, but then asserting that there is some sort of, idk, "Superethics" that supercedes all ethical theories, and which is somehow, not an ethical theory like the other ones are despite the fact that it's a theory of what you should and shouldn't do. And this "Superethics" is apparently supposed to be so obvious and objective that everyone in the world should automatically understand and accept it, regardless of their other beliefs or experiences.
It's kind of incredible that countless philosophers have wasted so much time studying ethics, which is for scrubs and rubes, but hardly anyone seems to have touched on the far more important concept of Superethics.
Meanwhile, my ethical theories are utterly divorced from what I think produces good results for society or what my sense of empathy or my conscience tells me. I just wrote a bunch of random principles on scraps of paper, pinned them to a dartboard, put on a blindfold and spun around three times, and now I have to completely ignore everything I'm inclined to do in slavish devotion to these abstract principles. Personally, I think you should just be relieved that the dart hit, "No Genocide" instead of "Always Genocide."
You don't understand anything.
Look, different people experience things differently, feel things differently, and have different moral intuitions, and different things that they think are "obvious" or "self-evident." This needs to be said, because I'm not sure if you're aware of it. If everyone acted purely based on that, then there would be no end to conflict, and no ability to cooperate on almost any level. In order to resolve these differences, or at the very least to communicate them to others, we take these experiences, feelings, intuitions, etc. and we rationalize them into moral principles.
The reason that I quipped about "putting principles on a dartboard" is because that seems to be how you think people arrive at them. That they are completely arbitrary and unrelated to empathy or moral intuitions, and that they must therefore be in constant conflict with them. That's a completely ridiculous and backwards way of seeing things.
There is no conflict whatsoever what my empathy and conscience tells me and the moral principles I believe, because they are one and the same. The latter is nothing more or less than an attempt to rationalize and verbalize what the former pushes me towards.
When I say that I will not support genocide under any circumstances, this is not some external concept that I read in a book somewhere or that my reason is trying to enforce against the will of my emotions or my conscience. It is my conscience, it is my empathy. The only distinction is that I have packaged my inner experiences of those things into words that are comprehensible to others.
Is is really so hard to accept that my sense of empathy leads me to a different conclusion from yours?
The point is less that I want to critique your specific moral theory (though I will), but more that I want you to acknowledge that it exists, in order to help you understand why people don't see things the way you think they should. I am not a deontologist, though I believe that view is more popular in the States than in Europe.
I'm more or less a Rule Utilitarian. I would argue that moral rules are essentially theories on how to produce desirable results. Such rules are necessary for several reasons: first, because there are many factors that can compromise a person's judgement in the moment, and second, because having such rules or theories allows us to test what works and what doesn't in a broader and more systematic way. I would add that my rules are more like suggestions or guidelines, that can be deviated from, but only if I'm very confident in that judgement, and prepared to accept the fallout.
Imo, your positions are only really defensible from the specific standpoint of Act Utilitarianism, which I see a lot of problems with. Perhaps the biggest is that in practice, you will still end up resorting to moral rules (or mental shorthands if you prefer) because to do otherwise would simply take too much time. When you go to the grocery, you probably don't evaluate the moral implications of every item every time you go there, and if you did, it probably wouldn't be based on something so abstract as "maximizing utility" or "the greatest good for the greatest number," but perhaps, "Which companies treat their workers well," or "Which products are made in countries I want to support," or "Which products contain no meat or animal products?" If you are making evaluations based on standards like that, then those are the moral rules you are operating under, "I should only buy goods from companies that treat their workers well," and so on.
But when you don't recognize those rules as such, then you lose the ability to critically examine them, evaluate them, or even express them. If you aren't making a conscious effort to refine those rules, then those rules are just going to be passively absorbed by what other people around you are doing, or what you're taught, or how things have always be done traditionally, or the ideology of the dominant socioeconomic class: none of which are good reasons for doing something.
Let me bring it back home. When I evaluate a moral claim like, "You should always vote for the lesser evil," then I look at historical examples and see whether the results that strategy has produced are things I consider good or desirable. "If you believe your survival is threatened, it's ok to resort to genocide," has an absolutely terrible track record historically. It's no more rational to believe that than to believe you can fly if you jump off a building. The theory simply has not every held up in practice at all, it is unsupported by evidence and I would even say that it is straight up unscientific. Because the process of evaluating moral theories has at least some similarities to the process of science, perhaps the biggest limitation being the element of subjectivity in evaluating outcomes. But I believe we are on the same page that the results from that belief have always been overwhelmingly negative. But since you aren't evaluating your rules, you won't notice when historical precedent is warning you against something.
I disagree with that interpretation of consequentialism.
What determines an action's rightness or wrongness is what consequences can be reasonably expected to occur from that action, not what results actually occur. If I help an old lady across the street, and that just so happens to lead to her being in the street at the time that an out of control car hits her, then I am not to blame for that outcome, because I could not have predicted it. To say that I should be blamed for that when it's a matter of pure chance (or that I deserve credit for doing something I reasonably expected to cause harm, but happened to produce a good result) is, well, silly. It means that it's just a matter of luck whether your actions are moral or not, and that there's no way of knowing ahead of time whether they will be.
That doesn't line up with your argument at all. The only way your position makes any sense is by arguing that the ends justify the means.
Imagine that I had a cursed sword that grows more powerful with each person I kill with it, and my country is ruled by an evil dragon that I need a very powerful sword to defeat. Is it ethical to go out and murder a whole bunch of innocent people (who might also get murdered by the dragon, who knows!) in order to power up my sword so that I can defeat the dragon? To say "yes" would certainly require saying that the ends justify the means. But this is no different from what you're arguing. The dragon is Trump, the cursed sword are the Democrats, and the innocents are the Palestinians. At the point when you're feeding innocents to the cursed sword or voting for someone who's engaged in genocide, you yourself have become a danger to society and to the world.
You talk about "a moral foundation to build a society on," but if you care about that at all, then obviously my position is the correct one. How on earth is "sometimes it's morally obligatory to do genocide" a moral foundation to build a society on?
The most morally good action one can take is the one that can be reasonably expected to produce the best consequences, and moral rules/theories are designed to help make those predictions. If the actual consequences are things that could have been reasonably predicted, then there's not really a difference between the actual consequences and "what I perceive to be a morally good action." Again, you are ignoring where my moral rules come from and acting as if I randomly arrived at them by throwing darts.
Look; if your obscuring and derailing this discussion the past few messages has been an attempt to disengage me, well, you have now succeeded.
In your quest for moral absolutism in a world very flawed, you have ended up supporting genocide while trying not to. Even Hannah Arendt in her critique of lesser-evilism doesn't come to the conclusion one should choose the worse evil by not opposing it as you're insisting here; but to always remember that the lesser evil is still evil, and do all that can be done so you won't end up in the situation where you're forced to choose in the first place.
You are not responsible for the system that's forcing you to play by it's shitty rules, and you're not personally responsible for not managing to change it, or even for whatever the election result ended up being. But you are responsible for your own actions, and those you're supporting here have been the ones enabling a lot worse outcome for the world. The bus is still headed off the cliff.
As I have sadly lost my faith in you taking part in this discussion with honesty, continuing has been rendered pointless. So: Have a good day! :)
Disappointing. 99% of arguments on here are just screaming at each other and slinging insults. I thought perhaps it would be possible to have an intelligent discussion that went deeper than that, but I guess that's "derailing" from our regularly scheduled programming.
So fine then, you're a genocidal fascist who's too racist to see Palestinians as human beings with moral worth. Let's just do that forever then.