And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
    167·
    2 months ago

    If you have a particular ideological hang up revolving around the difference between explicit and implicit consent to be governed…

    You can view yourself as morally correct for not voting for anyone whom you do not fully support.

    Thus you have not given explicit consent to either candidate, or the voting system itself.

    Its basically ‘Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote, therefore I am not responsible.’

    Its the trolley problem, but you just walk away from both tracks and the lever, and then claim that you did not consciously act to cause any harm, therefore you are guiltless.

    …

    Unfortunately by this logic it does also mean that you give implicit consent to literally everything your government does if you do not speak out against everything it does that you don’t like, or take some explicit action to countermand.

    …

    It’s an extremely sophomoric, cowardly and irresponsible stance to take in a situation like this, but there is an underlying logic to it… its just that this logic is ridiculous and absurd.

    • psivchaz@reddthat.com
      41·
      2 months ago

      I think of it exactly in terms of the trolley problem. The whole premise is that if you do nothing (don’t vote) more people die. By flipping the lever, fewer people die but you’ve taken an action that leads directly to their deaths. The philosophical question isn’t just “is it better for fewer people to die” but “in pulling the lever, are you directly responsible for those deaths?”

      My answer would be that inaction is itself an action. In this scenario, you have found yourself responsible either way. Suppose you pull the lever, though, to save as many lives as you can… Wouldn’t the ones who die as a result of this have loved ones that absolutely do blame you?