478
Harm Reduction Rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
Your options are:
Keep the train going as it is while yelling at the conductor to stop the train.
Replace the conductor with a guy who is obviously going to speed up the train and kill even more people. In fact, they're going to implement multi-track drifting and start killing people that weren't in any danger from the first guy.
I dunno, seeing as how those really are my only two choices, one of them seems a lot better than the other.
I've never seen any sort of logical response to this argument.
Person A: Maybe we should reduce harm
Person B: But Biden is bad and evil!
Person A: I agree, but Trump is worse and more evil.
Person B: These are both the same!
Clearly, there are people that will be under attack under Trump that won't under Biden. I'm not voting Republican or Democrat in the primaries, but I'm voting against Trump in the general. Not for Biden, but against Trump, because he's far more dangerous in the same ways that Biden was, and spreads out his harm to others as well.
:::spoiler I can provide one, and I'll also say, I've never seen a logical response to this argument, beyond drive-by downvotes.
Voters have something politicians want (votes) and politicians have something voters want (the ability to set policy). That means that there's a negotiation to be had. And the worst thing you can do in a negotiation is to say that you'll unconditionally agree to whatever terms the other side offers.
To use an example, there's a game/social experiment called "The Ultimatum Game." In it, the first player offers the second player an offer on how to split $100, and the second player chooses to accept or deny the offer. If both players behave as rational, "homo economicus" the result will be that player 1 offers a $99-$1 split. But in practice, most second players will reject offers beyond a certain point, usually around $70-$30, and most first players will offer more even splits because of that possibility. The only reason that the $99-$1 case is "rational" is because it's a one-off interaction. There is a cost associated with accepting such a deal, and that cost is that you've established yourself as a pushover for all future interactions, and there is no reason that anyone would offer you more than $1 if the game were repeated.
In the same way, an organized political faction that can credibly threaten to withhold support unless a baseline of demands are met will have more political leverage compared to a faction that unconditionally supports the "lesser evil." If a politician only needs to be marginally less bad than the alternative to win your vote, then they have no incentive to be more than marginally less bad. It's the same way that if you know the second player will act rationally, you can get away with only offering them $1 because $1>$0. Declaring a minimum baseline and sticking to it is a valid political strategy, in the same way "I won't accept less than $30, even if it means I get nothing" is a valid game strategy.
Whether you think that applies in this particular case is another question, but if you were looking for an logical explanation of the reasoning, there it is.
If this was what you were presenting this as (a logical response to the argument above) then it shouldn't be another question. It should apply directly to this argument.
Your comment only applies to a negotiation between 2 parties and doesn't address the actual problem at hand whatsoever. So yeah, its not a logical response to the above argument at all.
It establishes the logical framework for the opposing case. Making the opposing case requires additional assumptions, such as, where your minimum requirements ought to be set, exactly how good/bad Biden is, etc. Those would be tangents that I don't really want to get sidetracked by, because my goal was just to establish the logical framework for the opposing case. My comment was long enough as it is, and I've frequently had comments that long been (rudely) dismissed as being too long. My purpose for that comment is not to persuade but to explain.
It certainly does not establish "the logical framework" for the opposing case. Again, as I explained, the framework deals with 2 parties negotiating, which is not applicable to the argument presented.
You haven't provided any reason why the situations aren't comparable. If you introduce more parties, it doesn't change the dynamics of the situation.
Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.
Of course it does.
That's called an analogy.
No it doesn't.
Not when it isn't analogous to the situation presented. Which yours is not.
Prove it.
Prove it's not. You're the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don't know why you think that would change it so it's impossible for me to address your reasons.
That's not at all how the burden of proof works.
You're leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn't. You need to start by proving that it is.
but have you considered: what if I drain you of twelve gorillion dollars, or give you nothing, and that's the negotiation? what then? have you considered that: what if I just like heedlessly extend the metaphor to the current political state of affairs in such a way that it reinforces my own biases and points, what then, what would you do then? surely, the logic doesn't hold up if I tell you that the alternative is horrible, right?
wait, you're telling me the logic does hold up still in that instance? how about no? have you considered what if I just said no, to that? what if I just denied the logic and decided to be obstinate, what then? what if actually, I like eating shit, huh?