I see .ml found this post. There are almost as many dumb comments as there are downvotes.

I keep trying to explain this to people, maybe this graphic will work.

• In reality the tram has already been running in on a tram track were it has already run over more than 180.000 Palestinians (as estimated in Lancet article some months ago) as well as thousands of Lebanese.
• There have been hundreds of branches all allowing the tram to switch to a line free of victims and at each time Biden and Harris - the ones who have actually had the power all this time - pulled the lever to keep the tram on the line were it ran over more Palestinians and recently also Lebanese.

As usual with these propaganda “memes” the situation is misportrayed as one were the power is in the hands of common Americans, when the power has always been in the hands of the likes of Biden and Harris and who have repeatedly chosen to give more weapons to the Nazis, whilst knowing that it increases the risk of a Trump victory.

Even the kind of human being that only cares about “what’s in it for me” and “is relaxed about the mass murder of babies” should be able to see that the Trump defeat they desire could have been guarantee almost a year ago by Biden simply stopping the sending of weapons and ammo to Israel.

Honestly, I wonder how much of our disagreements do ultimately come down to moral philosophy. I see a lot of people making this comparison and I’d be happy to put aside the present political situation and step back to discuss a higher level of disagreement.

I am a consequentialist, and I would agree, in principle, that the correct decision in the trolley problem is to pull the lever. But that should always come with an extreme amount of disclaimers. There are no shortage of people throughout history who have made justifications for their actions on the basis of “the ends justify the means,” but often, they turned out to be wrong. To use an example, torture under the Bush administration was claimed to be justified on the basis of getting useful intelligence in order to save lives. But no such intelligence was ever extracted. Really, it was more motivated by revenge, or a desire to be the sort of cool antihero who does the stuff nobody else will that needs to be done, but “the ends justify the means” served as a rationalization. Another example like that (though perhaps more controversial) is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The problem with applying the trolley problem to real life is that we are mere human beings of flesh and blood. We have a whole host of cognitive biases that mislead us even when we have the best of intentions. If we give our minds a way to justify things that we know are bad, it gives it an out that allows us to rationalize the irrational and justify the unjustifiable.

There are two practices that are necessary to apply in order to counteract these biases. First, it is necessary to adopt a set of strong moral guidelines based on past experience and historical evidence. Second, it is necessary to regularly practice some form of introspection or meditation in order to better understand where your thoughts and feelings arise from, and how they flow through your mind. Said guidelines do not have to be rigorously adhered to 100% of the time, but they should be respected, and only deviated from after clear, careful consideration, understanding why the guideline exists and why deviation from them is almost always bad.

“Base” consequentialism, where you recognize that pulling the lever in the trolley problem is the correct decision, but simply accept that as a guiding principle, is a terrible moral philosophy, worse than deontology and possibly worse than having completely unexamined moral views. Some of the worst atrocities in history are the result of that sort of “ends justify the means” approach, detached from a set of moral guidelines and detached from humility and self-reflection. I would even say, speaking as a communist, that many of the bad things communists have done in history are a result of that kind of mentality. Following moral rules blindly is preferable to breaking moral rules without first doing the necessary work to be trusted with breaking them.

There’s plenty more I could say on the topic but people always complain about my long posts so I’d better cut myself off there.

In other words, op is proud and open about their willingness to sacrifice Palestinian lives in order to preserve their own comfort and safety under the status quo.

Anyone who can look at this meme and not only see one option as acceptable, but be proud of this depiction of how “right” they are (in their own minds) to pick the “lesser” (but still) evil, is the embodiment of “scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds”.

All to avoid having to do any more than the bare fucking minimum that is voting in this theatre, and getting their pat on the back for being brave antifascists (lmmfao, only in their own minds, of course).

One day, you will be the only one on both rails, while people watch and say they have no choice but to let you die, pretending there isn’t an third empty rail.

I really hate you people for spewing your propaganda like that.

1. The “worse” part implies the democrats didn’t give Israel everything it ever wanted which is in itself outright propaganda.

2. I don’t know why Ukraine is portrayed like Palestine. Where are they getting ethnically cleansed that I missed? Where is this coming from? Show some respect to the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century for the love of god

3. At how many atrocious policies do you say enough? At how many rollbacks from republicans that the democrats do nothing about do you say enough? At how many genocides do you say enough? If the democrats committed a second one? Trump would commit more you say. A third one? Trump would commit more. A fourth? A fifth? At what point do you draw the line?

https://medium.com/@ashwinjitsingh/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs-deontology-bd624a8e321e

"If one were to take a utilitarian standpoint, the means are justified by the end, which from a utilitarianist perspective, is the maximization of benefit. Hence, for a utilitarianist, whatever option guarantees the outcome of the maximum benefit is what is moral. Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.

The deontological perspective in contrast, advocates for the means justifying the end. This, for a deontologist, the morality of the action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than being based on the consequence. In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong."

These are all sort of parody to begin with but the purpose of the trolley dilemma isn’t about the results of the lever switch, it’s about approaching complicity and participation in a system that creates this kind of immoral choice.

I was going to make this, but put Palestine before the fork. And then put the person away from the lever refusing to participate when pulling the lever would move it to a track with nobody on it. Or pulling a different lever that does nothing (labeled Jill Stein).

Palestine is and will continue to get run over regardless who wins the presidency, so they aren’t exactly relevant to the choice. It’s not a real trolley problem because it’s not a trade for different people. It’s just “let the trolley run over Ukrainians, lgbtq+ people, minorities, and immigrants” or… don’t. And then refusing to touch the lever because it somehow makes you “love genocide” to have anything to do with the trolley, even if to mitigate the damage.

Immigrants used to be on top rail, but after four years, they have been placed on both rails, just like the Palestinians. There is no guarantee that the groups placed on the top rail will not be shifted to the bottom rail as well in four years.

Voting for Democrats is always advertised as the lesser of two evils, but it sure seems like the lesser evil is just trying to kill the same groups the greater evil. If they want people to vote for them, the Democrats should start working to save and prevent people from being tied to trolley tracks.

Or at least lie about it.

I’m hoping once Harris takes office that she can improve the Isreal/Palestine situation. But I suspect for now she has to keep her cards close or she’ll lose some key support.

Politics has been an old-boys club for a long time. She probably has to tread carefully until she knows if she has a majority or not.

It’s so sad that that is the best available option.

People who don’t want to vote for Harris over Palestine, please watch this video: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

You’re basically doing exactly the right thing, and just not factoring in an obscure yet critical piece of context, which this video lays out. When that context is factored in, it totally flips the call on who to vote for, even though none of the values change.

I get that this is not the hill to die on in this meme, but the tracks should really be reversed.

This implies “doing nothing” will only sacrifice Palestine, while “pulling the lever” (i.e. voting) will sacrifice Palestine+all other at risk groups.

Otherwise, this really is a classic trolly dilemma. We can’t stop the train and someone is going to get killed.

Yes, according to the meme both sides are murderers. Directly supporting criminals by endorsing them or voting them makes you complicit in their crime.

anybody on the left withholding their vote at this point fundamentally disbelieves in a system with exactly two discrete options, so this type of post doesn’t persuade anybody