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.
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.”
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.”
deleted by creator