Ginny [they/she]

I’m not attacking deontology. Or consequentialism.

I’m a bit confused as to why we’re arguing when you haven’t actually said anything I disagree with since your first response, so I am going to guess that what has happened here is that because I formatted my original comment as “here is the argument for why voting is bad”, “here is the counter-argument for why it isn’t”, it comes across as me thinking that the counter-argument is a refutation. That’s not my position. I was not trying to state a position. I was merely trying to put forward my analysis of why there is debate by offering the arguments I commonly see both for and against, and I put the “against voting” arguments first because that most directly answers the question I was responding to.

I think we both agree that there is no correct answer to the trolley problem beyond what is correct to you personally, and I think we both agree that there is no correct answer as to whether you should vote beyond what is correct to you personally. That is why I think the trolley problem is relevant.

FWIW I think that my “I will not vote for Labour” stance demonstrates that I at least lean more toward the deontological position (in this case, at least), but in truth I couldn’t honestly tell you that I’ve come to a firm moral decision. If the Tories and Reform have some fresh new lunatics in charge come the next election I may well be scared enough to change my mind.

there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics.

Literally the point that I was making in my original comment.

voting for genocide is wrong

If you’re a deontologist. Whereas a consequentialist would argue that allowing more genocide to occur when you could have voted for less genocide is wrong. And, as we’ve established, neither position is objectively the correct one. It depends on you as a person. And let’s not even get into virtue ethics.

A runaway trolley is on course to kill five people, but if you pull a lever it will be diverted to a track where it will kill only one person. Should you pull the lever? Does that make you a murderer?

You: There is no correct answer to this.

A politician who will commit multiple genocides is fighting an election against a politician who will commit one genocide. Should you vote for latter politician? Does that make you complicit in genocide?

You: This is obviously completely different from a trolley problem, and consequentialist and deontological ethics are not relevant in this situation.

I’m not USian, but here are some assorted reasons why one might choose not to vote. I do not necessarily agree (or disagree) with any of them, and this is my attempt at a reasonably balanced analysis as a person who is not an expert in politics, but has read a lot of arguments in the comments.

1. Voting makes you complicit.
   (Let’s say for the sake of argument that it is a given that Democrats will continue aiding Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing just as much as the Republicans, but will improve things for marginalised communities domestically.)
   The argument here is that voting for a politician that will perpetuate a genocide makes you complicit in a genocide in a way that inaction does not. The counter-argument is that refusing to exercise what influence you have in the choice between make a choice between Palestinian genocide or Palestinian genocide and trans genocide makes you complicit in trans genocide. This is literally the kind of thing that the trolley problem thought experiment was made to explore.

2. Voting for the lesser evil increases harm in the long run.
   The argument here is that demonstrating a willingness to vote for the lesser evil - with no red lines whatsoever - incentivises Democrats to only ever be slightly less bad than the Republicans, whereas having red lines and allowing Democrats who cross them to lose will incentivise the Democratic party to change their policies. The counter-argument is that Dems haven’t exactly demonstrated that they willing to adopt certain policies even when it would be demonstrably beneficial to their election prospects, and so the pragmatic thing to do is to delay harm for as long as possible to give a better chance that non-electoral politics will shift in the interim. The counter-counter-argument is that such a shift will not occur while that harm is being delayed, which leads us on to…

3. Accelerationism.
   (Yes, I’m aware that what I’m about to write isn’t the original meaning of accelerationism. Don’t @ me.)
   The argument here is electoral politics either can never progress toward socialism/anarchism/your-flavour-of-leftism (if you’re a leftist), or even that it is no longer even capable of halting a descent into fascism (if you’re a pessimistic liberal), and so we should simply allow shit to get fucked so that a critical mass of people have it bad enough to do some revolution and/or non-voting-based direct action about it. The counter-arguments here include, but are not limited to: a) well, that’s just like, you’re opinion, man; b) that’s an awfully big gamble to take when there’s no guarantee that what will come after will be better; and c) you should prioritise the lives of people that currently exist, now, rather than those of hypothetical future people, and immediate harm reduction is of more benefit to those people specifically.

In case any one cares, I’m English. My position on voting is that I may vote in an election where the Greens or possibly the Lib Dems stand a chance of winning, but otherwise I spoil my ballot. Yes, I’m aware that the Lib Dems are shitlibs. Still better than Labour. I will never vote Labour for as long as it remains transphobic or as long as the likes of Luke Akehurst remain in the party.

The pope is God’s favourite person, so obviously God wants him in heaven as soon as possible.

The UK constitution is written…

Eh… yes and no. But we’ll get to that.

To answer your question, there’s a principle in legal philosophy called the rule of recognition, which, basically, describes how a court determines what the law is.

The US constitution is considered the highest law of the land, and describes the process by which legislation has to be passed (usually by simple majority vote) by Congress and the Senate and assented to by the President before it becomes statutory law. It also describes the process by which the constitution itself can be amended, which is a much more stringent process. Basically, an amendment must be proposed and than accepted by either a national convention (which has never even been tried) or by being passed by a 2/3 majority vote in both the Congress and the Senate. It then has to be ratified by at least 3/4 of the states. Further, it also contains some amendments that limit what statutory law can do.

So the rule of recognition in the US is, basically, is the law constitutional? Which is to say, is the legislation enacted according to the rules in the constitution, and not invalidated by any of limits set out in the constitution? And if the answer to that question is “no” then the court will disapply that law. If legislation was passed saying slavery is legal again then, in theory at least, the court would say “no, there is a constitutional amendment that says slavery can’t be legal, this is not good law”. The only way to override that would be to pass a new amendment to remove that amendment. And unless the new amendment is passed according to the rules laid out, the courts would not recognise it. So in this way, the US legislature has very much been bound.

The fundamental principle of UK’s constitution, on the other hand, is that the King-in-Parliament has absolute sovereignty. Now, while this is certainly acknowledged in legislation and lots of court decisions, it isn’t written down in the sense that there is a clear definition of what that means.

The rule of recognition is generally taken to be that an Act passed by Parliament and given royal assent is the law, no matter what it says, and is the highest form of law in the land. To see an example of how seriously that is taken, see the mess that is the Human Rights Act 1998 and its “declaration of incompatibility” apparatus, which exists because courts cannot disapply an Act of Parliament. (To be clear I’m in favour of the European Convention/Court of Human Rights, I just think the HRA is massive bodge (precisely because our constitution is the way it is).) To see an example of how flexible it can be when it comes to interpreting Acts of Parliament, see the Metric Martyrs case decision.

It is an open questions as to what extent, if any, Parliament can bind itself because it’s unclear what a court would do if an Act of Parliament was given royal assent despite the fact a previous Act of Parliament technically says it shouldn’t have done. And to avoid a constitutional crisis, Parliament, by convention, doesn’t try.

CDOOKIE! OM NOM NOM NOM

That’s very much an unwritten law, like much of the UK constitution. As a general rule every country that has a codified constitution has very much bound the hands of future governments, to a greater or lesser extent.

I would avoid saying that the law favours rapists in general (though it might where you live) because it makes it sound as if it’s a problem that can be fixed if we bring in the right legislation. The problem as I see it is that the people who administer the law favour rapists, and that’s a much more intractable problem.

Is skill coloured by the type of skill or by the level of skill?

Yeah, I swiped it all out on the phone, and I accidentally a few words. Sorry, that’s my bad.

I think that when we’re talking about housing, it should perhaps be implied that I’m not talking about the cathedral and the other tourist attractions. I’m talking about:

• High density, mid-rise housing incorporating 5 over 1s (as an aside, that term seems very American to me, but I’m not sure why as it’s a pretty good description of what is meant) providing convenient access to shopping and leisure facilities. Pretty much everything you could conceivably need within a 15 walk.
• Thoughtful design of roads, with wide thoroughfares with dedicated bus lanes, for moving traffic, and narrower streets, ideally one-way, for access. As few stroads as possible.
• Cycle lanes everywhere. (Admittedly, Eixample would be better if more cycling lanes were physically separated.
• Each housing block having enclosed shared spaces where people can build community with their neighbours. (Some may scoff at this, but experience in Britain tends to show that high rises that aren’t luxury developments tend to become shitty places to live, because people don’t get to know their upstairs and downstairs neighbours and as a result a lot more people treat communal areas disrespectfully. That could be a distinctly British problem, I suppose, but I’m not convinced that’s the case.)

Yeah, a lot of the buildings in Eixample are more ornate than they would be if you were building them in bulk, quickly, and I’d probably throw in more parks, too. But the plan is sound, and very achievable.

I’m not American, I’m British. Towns and cities all across Europe are filled with “5 over 1s” and similar, and it’s fine, and works well. Just because the US can’t not fuck it up, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone else.

Solving homelessness isn’t aesthetically pleasing enough? I know a certain GERMAN political party that agrees with your sentiment…

Lemmy.ml user try not to accuse another user of being a Nazi for literally no credible reason challenge: impossible.

We’re a discussion about architecture and urban planning, my dude. Commie blocs solved the homelessness relatively quickly and relatively cheaply. Great. Fantastic. That doesn’t they were best and most ideal solution possible at the time, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’re the best and most ideal solution now.

Now, as it stands, I don’t think commie blocks are that bad, I just felt like pointing out that your arguments seemed somewhat unserious, but in case you’re curious, here are the things I think are non-ideal about commie blocks:

• People tend to prefer “human scale” architecture in places that are supposed to be comfortable and large clusters of high rise buildings tend to make people feel small.
• They require steel and concrete to build, which is a concern in terms of carbon footprint, whereas 5 over 1s and similarly sized buildings can get away with using wooden frame construction.
• High rises cost more per occupant to maintain than a similarly constructed mid rise, as a general rule.
• The need for access to lighting, etc. means that the buildings must be spaced a fair distance apart, so the effective footprint still ends up being similar to a wider-based mid rise bulding. And while this does allow for green space, it’s green space that has to be kept low (so as not to interfere with the lower floors) and needs constant maintenance, so it tends to be fairly bland.
• The physical separation between the blocks and the reliance on public transport to reach facilities tends to promote social isolation in a similar way to suburbs.
• High rises mean that the vast majority of the occupants must either rely of lifts (and there are never enough working lifts) or be able-bodied and fit.

If you’re asking me what I’d prefer instead, I’m thinking something like Eixample.

How is it bleak and inhumane to build free, strong, effective houses?

That is obviously not what is being complained about. The chief complaints are:

1. Large areas consisting of one or two buildings copied-and-pasted dozens of times.
2. The area between buildings being more-or-less featureless.

The only people that like those new fuck ugly “mixed use” developments is rich old smarmy people who’s family left their home town 20 years ago.

I’m not sure what you mean by mixed use developments but if you mean this, then you are flat out wrong. Mixed use developments are the cornerstone of the kinds of urbanism that encompass walkable neighbourhoods and the 15 minute city, which is overwhelmingly preferred by the non-car-brained.

And they have the worst fucking interior taste I’ve ever seen…

Not really relevant since interiors can be ugly or not independent of the ugliness of the buildings.

Typical Sagittarius! /s