@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 6 months agoHarm Reduction Rulelocklemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square91fedilinkarrow-up1463arrow-down117file-text
arrow-up1446arrow-down1imageHarm Reduction Rulelocklemmy.blahaj.zone@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 6 months agomessage-square91fedilinkfile-text
There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
minus-square@Daft_ishlink1•edit-26 months agoIt does. Maybe for someone who has nothing to lose it doesn’t. We call that privilege.
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilink1•6 months agoThe stakes can change your risk-benefit assessment, but the fundamental dynamics are the same. Even if there’s a gun to my head, there are limits to what deal I’ll accept. “Kill another captive and I’ll let you live five more minutes,” for example.
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilink1•edit-26 months agoI know what a zero-sum game is, but I don’t see how it’s relevant to this conversation. Guess you lose two health bars? Seems like you presented the wrong evidence.
minus-square@daltotronlink1•6 months ago Maybe for someone who has nothing to lose it doesn’t. wait, having nothing to lose is privilege? I thought it was generally the other way around
It does.
Maybe for someone who has nothing to lose it doesn’t.
We call that privilege.
The stakes can change your risk-benefit assessment, but the fundamental dynamics are the same. Even if there’s a gun to my head, there are limits to what deal I’ll accept. “Kill another captive and I’ll let you live five more minutes,” for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
I know what a zero-sum game is, but I don’t see how it’s relevant to this conversation.
Guess you lose two health bars? Seems like you presented the wrong evidence.
wait, having nothing to lose is privilege? I thought it was generally the other way around