Thunderbird4

We already know what he looks like in a cowboy hat, and that ain’t it.

Are you in the US? I wouldn’t dissuade anyone from being an organ donor, it’s obviously a great necessity and saves thousands of lives, but I’m always amazed that the bottomless skepticism of our for-profit healthcare system dries up on certain topics.

We all love to moan about greedy health insurance companies and hospital administrations putting profit above the actual health of patients and outcomes of procedures, so why is it taken for granted that, when faced with a decision to go to extraordinary lengths to save a badly injured, uninsured person, or get expensive organs for 3 or 4 insured people at the top of the recipient list, that the responsible parties will make the right decision? Hell, even without a profit motive, that can be a difficult decision that can be influenced by personal beliefs and biases.

I certainly don’t know enough about exactly how these decisions are made to have a strong opinion, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize potentially warranted skepticism as moronic.

Pierce Brosnan, too

That’s certainly not a flaw in the philosophy. As it pertains to the voter, you’re not expected to know the future, but you do have a civic duty to be informed when voting. If you have made a good faith effort to understand the context of the choice and the most likely outcomes of the options available, you can’t be faulted for not foreseeing the exact outcomes that unfold. If nothing else, because you can’t possibly know exactly what the outcomes of the alternatives would have been. Ignoring the most likely outcomes in favor of the most desired outcomes is what seems unethical. “Letting perfect be the enemy of good” and all that.

I genuinely “Kant” see how someone can justify a moral framework where only the action has intrinsic morality and the consequences are completely irrelevant. Sure, the morality of an action should be considered, but ultimately, real-world choices have to be made from a holistic consideration of the entire situation.

Similarly, I also reject the idea of perfectly objective morality. There are extreme shades of grey, but never black and white. No action can be said to be universally good regardless of both intent and context, except in religious moral frameworks.

I’d hardly call that comic a middle finger. Just a succinct way of expressing my disagreement. But since you asked, here’s the empathetic version:

Please appreciate that you’re not the only disappointed idealist. Everyone wants things to be better and I genuinely understand the desire to only vote for what you can defend to yourself morally. However, that’s not the framework we have to work within. The realities of American politics require pragmatism that is incompatible with stubborn idealism. My argument is that the deontological approach is unethical because it prioritizes how the voter feels about their vote over reducing total harm to the greatest number of people. Votes aren’t love letters and they aren’t prayers. To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.

I don’t know if “call your elected officials” is a good example of “anything that isn’t nothing.” Seems like anytime I’ve been motivated enough to contact one of my reps to oppose specific legislation, it turns out they’re one of the bill’s co-sponsors. It definitely feels much closer to the learned helplessness scenario.

I’ll just pull it up on this display that’s more than 9 feet away from the source…

Which will occur at whatever undisclosed time that Windows Updates deems prudent.

Recognizing Jerusalem didn't kill 25,000 Palestinians

Didn’t it? It seems very plausible that Israel’s most powerful ally taking this huge step that no previous president was willing to take could have easily galvanized Hamas’s resolve and fanned the flames leading up to the recent attacks and resulting Israeli siege.

This shit has been going on for decades. It’s foolish to treat the recent events as an isolated incident, or to compartmentalize the repercussions of US foreign policy to individual presidential administrations.

A perfectly fair point. My only concern there is that reliance on “sure things” in 2016 is part of why Hillary lost. There were, after all, more votes for Trump in California than any other state, simply down to population size. I’d just hate to see us all get shot in the foot again due to complacency.

-> You’ll be shot in the head if you don’t eat your Brussels sprouts.

-> No, cookies and ice cream or nothing!

Life and especially politics is full of compromises. Everybody compromises on something on every vote. You know what the stakes are, and you know what the consequences of inaction are.

Unfortunately, “not Trump” IS a good enough reason, and you have the choice to come to terms with that fact before November, or during a Trump presidency/dictatorship.