So you would disagree with the original article?

Voting lesser of two evils is a strategy induced by the voting system itself and the fact that you know something about how others will vote. That this article doesn't even talk about the system is silly. I don't know how anyone can expect to work out the ethics of actions within a system without considering the structure of the system.

Except for perhaps under virtue ethics. Maybe there you don't need to consider the structure of the system, and you can not vote for the lesser of two evils. But almost no one subscribes to virtue ethics cause it's dumb.

> We know they are models, we know they are only approximations, and we also know the approximations are good enough to get the results we want.

As someone who works in an engineering discipline I think you are naive to assume that all engineers know this. Many I have dealt with simply follow algorithms and give little or no thought to what underlies them. I'd also suggest that if we had, if it were possible to have, more complex models the world would not be running headlong towards catrastrophe as we speak.

> In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.

-Hannah Arendt

"That’s because you have a special proprietary responsibility for acts you perform. Those choices and acts are, in some special sense, yours, distinct from outcomes that result from combining your choices and acts with everyone else’s."

The above makes it seem like not voting for the lesser of two evils isn't itself a choice. That voting for the lesser of two evils would be a choice but that not voting so that you didn't help elected an evil even if it is lesser isn't still making a choice. All things are choices, even the choice not to engage. You ARE responsible for the outcomes of choices you refuse to engage with. Letting 5 people die because you don't want to personally be responsible by throwing the lever is still you being responsible for killing 5 people in the trolley problem. The reason it could even be framed differently is because the trolley problem is a hypothetical that can't be real. How did you get on the trolley to begin with? You have to take responsibility for getting into the problem in the first place when it comes to the real world.

Ah okay. Thank you for your reply.

Reincarnation? Achieving moksha or liberation.

Like most things in society, actually. Integrity seems to be quite in short supply.

In the wild, the moral standards of civilizations would not exist because the overabundances and temptations of civilizations would not exist. So, no, a human being does not need the moral standards of civilizations to survive outside of civilizations.

That gets us into the realm of causal inference. This is not really what the author was talking about, but yes, it's a field that has a bunch of additional challenges. In this case, more data points might not help, but collecting data about additional variables might. In any case, getting more data will pretty much never cause your model to be worse.

What about confounding variables?

For example. Looking for trends across governments:hard. Looking for trends WITHIN government departments: Easier. (two different departments might trend in opposite directions and cancel each other out when pooled together)

Oh, you mean like Covid?

> OK. I claim the success of the hard sciences and engineering are the proof of the scientific method.

No moving of the goalposts please.

The established point of contention is this:

>> I think Science is flawless here.

> Can you expand on this a bit?

>> So, you disregard any evidence that does not support your beliefs?

> Yes.

Usually people don't admit such flaws in such a straightforward manner, thanks for your honesty.

> Do you believe that all the behavior of any Scientist counts in the evaluation of Science in its idealized form?

Not in its idealized form....that this is how so many scientific materialists like to represent science (as opposed to its true nature) is but one part of what makes me suspicious of it as an institution that holds so much power in out culture.

> I propose the "idealized form", while leaving some room for ambiguity, is sufficiently preached in many texts that it have meaningful reference.

Exactly.

Maybe all the cherry-picking & misinformation that gets churned out when non-ethical individuals start playing with that data. Or when inaccurate data is relied upon as factual rather than speculative.

;)

>No shifting of the burden of proof please.

OK. I claim the success of the hard sciences and engineering are the proof of the scientific method.

>So, you disregard any evidence that does not support your beliefs?

Yes. I distinguished between the behavior of some Scientists and the scientific method. Do you believe that all the behavior of any Scientist counts in the evaluation of Science in its idealized form? I propose the "idealized form", while leaving some room for ambiguity, is sufficiently preached in many texts that it have meaningful reference.

I’m not saying he’s right. I’m asking if there is a name for his sort of statement made in the video.

How does he know he's right? What evidence is there or reason to believe his ideas?

> Morality is a contrived set of standards that is meant to suppress human nature in order to get humans to be civilized

So you're saying Morality isn't necessary for a human being? That the only reason Morality was ever put forth was for an ulterior motive by it's professors to "get humans to be civilized"? What do you think morality is? Would a line survivor on an island not need morality?

The proposition is absolutely within the realm of science: it can be measured and tested.

A disdain for the 'soft sciences' is an odd thing to encounter in a philosophy forum, but they are scientific: they engage in the iterative system of observation, hypothesis, testing, and analysis which defines science. As for the second point, science is not just concerned with what 'is,' but also why. While science cannot (yet) directly engage with the moral quandary, by engaging with systems scientifically humans can ask better questions and evaluate systems on more concrete grounds than purely qualitative ones.

At the end we have a bit of a paradox: the question of what ought to be escapes our current ability to directly test and measure; however, both the cause and effect of that quandary exist in the real, testable world. This is the role of science, to not merely evaluate decisions to slot into a moral framework, but to expand our understanding of both decision and framework in the pursuit of more complete knowledge.

The problem is do we have a choice? Lesser is still better than 3rd party or independents who will never win and we risk getting the bigger of two evils elected. lol

Its basically voter blackmail, they have zero choice in the matter.

Unless we could somehow change the constitution to allow direct voting on policies, laws, budgets and big projects. But this means the people have to be educated about these things, constantly, NOBODY has the time nor energy to learn all of these things to even make informed voting choices. lol

So in the end, we are stuck with the same lesser of two evils formula.

Oh, if only there is a non governmental organization that is funded by taxpayers but totally impartial and will simplify the facts about policies, laws, budgets, big projects for the voters and inform them better?

From a consequentialist perspective, seems like the only relevant thing is whether withholding your vote - or voting for some third party - would actually stand to have an impact. Otherwise it's just a kind of virtue signaling, right?

> Given its success, I think I need to turn the question back to you.

No shifting of the burden of proof please.

> Again, I'm not referring to behavior of eminent scientists when speaking outside the strict confines of their field.

So, you disregard any evidence that does not support your beliefs?

> Given that the subject of the thread is values in the normative sense, I think I need to reword that to the "effectiveness" or "truth-orientation in the instrumental sense" instead of "value"

You are welcome to rework your beliefs and restate your claims in a more epistemically sound form if you'd like.

>I think Science is flawless here.Can you expand on this a bit?

Without detracting from soft science, I was referring to hard science here. Given its success, I think I need to turn the question back to you. Which part of scientific method do you see a flaw here. Again, I'm not referring to behavior of eminent scientists when speaking outside the strict confines of their field.

>The value of Science itself is not in question here.I believe this to be incorrect, as I am questioning the value of science.

Given that the subject of the thread is values in the normative sense, I think I need to reword that to the "effectiveness" or "truth-orientation in the instrumental sense" instead of "value"

No, there is a difference. In an is-ought fallacy, the first normative premise is missing, whereas in a naturalistic fallacy, this premise is present but has been transformed into a definition.

Those are the same.