You’re demonstrating a utilitarian sense of ethics.
And even more specifically, act utilitarian ethics. This incredibly narrow focus on the immediate effects of actions on the individual level which they treat as the only possible way of looking at things with absolutely zero examination.
I’d describe myself as a rule utilitarian, and from that perspective, the rule of “Don’t support genocide, period” has a much stronger track record historically than, “Don’t support genocide, unless you have a really good reason.”
There is not one single time in all of human history that a stubborn refusal to support genocide has produced undesirable results. There are countless cases of people committing genocide because they see it as a “lesser evil” or “the only viable option.” “If we don’t kill them, they’ll kill us, so we have no choice, this is the lesser evil.” But not only are liberals utterly ignorant about moral philosophy, they’re also ignorant about history, or they refuse to learn from it.
Modern American liberals are the ideological inheritors of the people who took the more “progressive” approach to indigenous people of subjugating and forcibly assimilating them, killing any who resisted, as opposed to the people who simply wanted to exterminate them all (who now live on through republicans). It’s no wonder that they struggle to understand any perspective more progressive than “humane” genocide.
But this pretends that “not voting” is somehow a morally neutral inaction. It is a choice, the choice to support genocide EVEN HARDER.
This has very little to do with utilitarianism or deontology, and everything with retaining a feeling of moral superiority without having to actually do stuff.
You want a deontological take? Start bombing bridges or other infrastructure. Stop paying taxes, go to jail. Do literally anything that doesn’t amount to “not doing stuff makes me better, akshually”.
But this pretends that “not voting” is somehow a morally neutral inaction. It is a choice, the choice to support genocide EVEN HARDER.
I voted third party. Voting for someone who opposes genocide is not “supporting genocide eVeN hArDeR” than voting for someone who supports genocide.
This has very little to do with utilitarianism or deontology, and everything with retaining a feeling of moral superiority without having to actually do stuff.
I could just as easily say that your decision to vote for a genocidaire is just about retaining a feeling of moral superiority without having to do stuff. The difference is that I subscribe to a moral framework that says genocide is bad.
You want a deontological take? Start bombing bridges or other infrastructure. Stop paying taxes, go to jail.
The philosophy understander has logged on.
I’m not even a deontologist, dumbass. I literally just said that. Not that “bombing bridges” is remotely a “deontological take” to begin with.
The thing that really bugs me about y’all isn’t just the fact that you’re so ignorant, it’s that you’re so confident in your ignorance. You drop into intelligent conversations to not only spew a bunch of unexamined nonsense, but to tell everyone else how stupid and bad they are for not accepting your nonsense. It’s like talking to a MAGA person tuned down like 10%.
And even more specifically, act utilitarian ethics. This incredibly narrow focus on the immediate effects of actions on the individual level which they treat as the only possible way of looking at things with absolutely zero examination.
I’d describe myself as a rule utilitarian, and from that perspective, the rule of “Don’t support genocide, period” has a much stronger track record historically than, “Don’t support genocide, unless you have a really good reason.”
There is not one single time in all of human history that a stubborn refusal to support genocide has produced undesirable results. There are countless cases of people committing genocide because they see it as a “lesser evil” or “the only viable option.” “If we don’t kill them, they’ll kill us, so we have no choice, this is the lesser evil.” But not only are liberals utterly ignorant about moral philosophy, they’re also ignorant about history, or they refuse to learn from it.
Modern American liberals are the ideological inheritors of the people who took the more “progressive” approach to indigenous people of subjugating and forcibly assimilating them, killing any who resisted, as opposed to the people who simply wanted to exterminate them all (who now live on through republicans). It’s no wonder that they struggle to understand any perspective more progressive than “humane” genocide.
But this pretends that “not voting” is somehow a morally neutral inaction. It is a choice, the choice to support genocide EVEN HARDER.
This has very little to do with utilitarianism or deontology, and everything with retaining a feeling of moral superiority without having to actually do stuff.
You want a deontological take? Start bombing bridges or other infrastructure. Stop paying taxes, go to jail. Do literally anything that doesn’t amount to “not doing stuff makes me better, akshually”.
I voted third party. Voting for someone who opposes genocide is not “supporting genocide eVeN hArDeR” than voting for someone who supports genocide.
I could just as easily say that your decision to vote for a genocidaire is just about retaining a feeling of moral superiority without having to do stuff. The difference is that I subscribe to a moral framework that says genocide is bad.
The philosophy understander has logged on.
I’m not even a deontologist, dumbass. I literally just said that. Not that “bombing bridges” is remotely a “deontological take” to begin with.
The thing that really bugs me about y’all isn’t just the fact that you’re so ignorant, it’s that you’re so confident in your ignorance. You drop into intelligent conversations to not only spew a bunch of unexamined nonsense, but to tell everyone else how stupid and bad they are for not accepting your nonsense. It’s like talking to a MAGA person tuned down like 10%.