(By definition you're talking about consequentialism over deontology here, if you're using the philosophy definition of the term)
-
-
-
Replying to @Nymphomachy
I mean it makes sense in the simplest meaning of the term, the term "deontology" just means "knowledge of duty" ("deon" is "duty" in Greek) So in the dictionary definition of the term consequentialism is also a duty, to do things that have positive consequences
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
But the term "deontology" was invented (by consequentialists) to describe the opposite of consequentialism, i.e. duty as something that exists as an objective universal law
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
Voting is a pretty good example to talk about these ethical problems actually because most people's ideas of the ethics of voting rests in this uneasy middle ground between deontology and consequentialism
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
In the most literal form of consequentialism, you shouldn't vote at all, because it doesn't matter Unless the election is literally decided by one vote your vote is of no benefit to anyone
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
You mean the Kaplan argument? In said case, the importance of voting increases jointly with moderation and political information, so for a small but sizable group of people, voting would still be a duty. Anyway, is a very elitist and limited argument, to say the less
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hmantegazzi @Nymphomachy
Okay but that means that voting only matters if you actually do vote as part of a sizable group of people who directly hold each other accountable for voting (carpooling to the polls etc) Most people actually don't do this
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
You can say that voting has value because it directly encourages other people to vote but of course it doesn't *Telling* people to vote and *saying* you're going to vote does that You can do that without actually doing it yourself It's the game theory of hypocrisy
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This was actually a thing that came up in 2016, Michael Tracey got fired for trying to dox Lena Dunham, he found out she wasn't registered to vote in NY even though she'd been exhorting people online to vote for Hillary
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
It's hypocrisy in the literal sense to do that but... from a consequentialist standpoint is it even really a bad thing to do? If Dunham got 100 people to vote who otherwise would not have by tweeting reminders to her audience, that means she still had 100x the influence as you
-
-
And for Dunham more than most people voting *has a personal cost* Registering to vote doxes you, if she'd been registered then Tracey would've found her address, which is probably why she didn't That's why there's a gentleman's agreement among journos to not do what he did
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
(Which is itself a whole ethical conundrum - is it my job to refrain from looking up publicly available information just because it would be a bad thing if everyone did it? Shouldn't they just make it private then, instead of blaming me for finding it? Etc etc)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.