TLDR If you care about the Palestinians then vote for Harris because her being president is useful for reaching a ceasefire.
The other post about this topic got locked as I was typing a reply. I feel like my comment is relevant to this discussion so I would like to leave it here. I would think this reply, the original comment, and this post are tightly related and are all about the same thing.
One thing I’ve learned this election cycle is how few people have any knowledge of utilitarianism. Genocide is better than genocide+1. Not acting is a moral choice, and frequently a cowardly one.
There is utilitarianism the ethical philosophy and there is utility. Utilitarianism is still a form a moral reasoning as it subjectively elevates the maximization of happiness and well-being. And what constitutes happiness and well-being is not universal. Utility is a method of analysis used to determine how effectively a stated action advances a stated goal. Utility relies on empirical evidence, observation and math, and is goal agnostic.
For many people on Lemmy, their goals are probably roughly summarized by wanting to end Israel’s genocide, Palestinian statehood, and general prosperity for the Palestinian people. Harris has stated multiple times that she wants a ceasefire. Trump has stated he thinks Israel needs to be allowed to finish what they started. Trump has also stated he’s going to be a dictator on day one and that his followers are never going to have to vote again.
Moral reasoning that is consistent with our goals paralyzes us in this case. Voting for a candidate whose administration oversaw and contributed to a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Voting for a candidate who is threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Not voting or voting third party when the candidate threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is favored by the electoral college in a FPTP system is subjectively immoral. We can subjectively state one of these options to be the lesser evil, but we have no empirical way to measure evil. Thus in theory, there is no way to form a consensus with subjective moral reasoning alone.
For people whose goal is to support the Palestinian people, it is useful to elect Harris, because someone in power who wants a ceasefire is a useful step to actually getting a ceasefire. Where as Trump will allow Israel to complete it’s genocide and end our democracy. This would allow Israel to continue it’s genocide indefinitely without US citizens ever being able to influence US foreign policy again.
Everyone is prone to moral reasoning. It’s intuitive and philosophers have been doing it since ancient times. In this case, there is a consensus around wanting to help the Palestinian people. But any given moral reasoning derived from our goal doesn’t necessarily lead us to a course of action that can help them. With a clear goal in mind, utility provides a clear-cut and consistent answer in the form of voting for Harris. edit: typo
For people whose goal is to support the Palestinian people, it is useful to elect Harris, because someone in power who wants a ceasefire
I have seen no material evidence to this effect.
That’s not even an argument against Harris per say. But this insistence in a double-super secret pro-Palestinian insider movement insider her staff is delusional. Harris has been outspoken in her defense of “Israel’s right to defend itself” time and time and time again. She’s backed every effort to send more weapons of war to Netanyahu. She’s defended the UN ambassador’s decision to vote against sanctions for Israel or an end to hostilities or a future legitimized Palestinian state. She’s directly fundraising from AIPAC. At this point, claiming she’s a pro-Palestinian candidate is about as rational as claiming Trump is pro-Ukrainian.
In this case, there is a consensus around wanting to help the Palestinian people.
There is a relatively broad national consensus. But we are devoid of a political class reflective of those views. Hell, two of the most outspoken pro-Palestinian advocates in the US House - Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush - got kicked out of their seats in primaries fueled by AIPAC lobbyists. Ilham Omar and Rashida Tlaib nearly lost their jobs in the same manner.
The internal institutions of the Democratic Party are openly in favor of the genocide of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and of the people of Lebanon, and of Iran. If this shit keeps up, we could see the war spread to Jordan and Syria and Iraq as well. Certainly, there’s no love lost by Americans for two of those states.
The political consensus is in favor of more killing, an escalation of the scope of the war, and free rein for the Israeli leadership in its mission to subjugate the surrounding territories. With continued US support, its very possible that the Israelis will get exactly what they desire, and we’ll be looking at a permanent occupation and continuous holocaust of native peoples on a scale not seen since the genocide of First Nations people in the US.
If you’re sitting on the October Surprise please share it. All the evidence we have suggests that Harris wants a ceasefire. While Trump wants a christo-fascist dictatorship and is content to watch Israel complete its genocide. The candidates have distinct positions despite your argument’s attempt to conflate the two.
Problem is that public statements are one thing, actions are another. And politicians are known to make great many statements they then contradict by their actions.
She could have publicly renounced the Israeli government instead of defending it.
She could have voted against and started voting initiatives to stop weapon sales and military aid.
She could have went to court to sue the government if Biden was reluctant. The arms sales are illegal by US law, as Israel is known to attack US and international humanotaroan aid
She could have made a point of opposing Netanyahu when he was in congress instead of just not being there.
She could have threatened to step down as VP and followed through with it, once she became candidate.
She could have let Palestinian Americans speak at the DNC convention instead of silencing them, while giving Families of Israeli hostages a place to speak. This was the bare minimum to do, unless clearly picking the side of Zionism.
Then the party establishment had two options:
Either they would have fallen in line, winning the election and accepting that genocide is a no go for Harris.
Or they could have tried to oust her, knowing that it would cost them the election, or create so much push back that she remains as candidate and gets to toss them out.
When Harris took office the 117th Congress’s Senate was divided 50–50 between Republicans and Democrats;[193] this meant that she was often called upon to exercise her power to cast tie-breaking votes as president of the Senate. Harris cast her first two tie-breaking votes on February 5. In February and March, Harris’s tie-breaking votes were required to pass the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 stimulus package Biden proposed, since no Senate Republicans voted for it.[194][195] On July 20, Harris broke Mike Pence’s record for tie-breaking votes in the first year of a vice presidency[196] when she cast the seventh tie-breaking vote in her first six months.[197] She cast 13 tie-breaking votes during her first year in office, the most tie-breaking votes in a single year in U.S. history, surpassing John Adams, who cast 12 in 1790.[197][198] On December 5, 2023, Harris broke the record for the most tie-breaking votes cast by a vice president, casting her 32nd vote, exceeding John C. Calhoun, who cast 31 votes during his nearly eight years in office.[199][200] On November 19, 2021, Harris served as acting president from 10:10 to 11:35 am EST while Biden underwent a colonoscopy.[201] She was the first woman, and the third person overall, to assume the powers and duties of the presidency as acting president of the United States.[202][203][204]
As early as December 2021, Harris was identified as playing a pivotal role in the Biden administration owing to her tie-breaking vote in the evenly divided Senate as well as her being the presumed front-runner in 2024 if Biden did not seek reelection.[205]
So from my understanding she gets the final vote on split issues. She could have leveraged her political power to push these issues to get to vote.
At this point, claiming she’s a pro-Palestinian candidate is about as rational as claiming Trump is pro-Ukrainian.
I just wanna take this a step further and say it’s actually less rational.
What Trump is talking about is stopping aid to Ukraine, something which he had previously supported and delivered on.
What Harris isn’t talking about is stopping aid to the people killing Palestinians, a position that she has never supported.
Of course I’m not actually saying Trump is actually pro-Ukraine. But if I had to choose one, I’d have an easier time defending that claim than the idea that Kamala is pro-Palestine because at least I’d have something material to work with.
Why would you do this, yet completely ignore what Trump will do in Palestine and what Harris will do in Ukraine? Why is one only important for the one candidate, and the other for the other?
Trump will stop aid to Ukraine, and, as he has already said, will give Netanyahu carte blanche to eliminate the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Harris will continue to aid Ukraine, and has not taken a clear position on Israel/Palestine (because, if she did, she would 100% lose this election), but at the very least, has called for a cease-fire.
Why would you do this, yet completely ignore what Trump will do in Palestine and what Harris will do in Ukraine?
Because that’s not relevant to the specific point being discussed. The comparison was Harris on Palestine vs Trump on Israel. Y’all might expect people to constantly pay homage to your candidate to signal that we’re on your side or whatever, even when it’s not relevant, but I have no interest in doing so.
Why is one only important for the one candidate, and the other for the other?
I’m not voting for either or telling anyone to vote for either so this is nonsense. Trump is obviously not a good candidate and you shouldn’t vote for him.
Harris will continue to aid Ukraine, and has not taken a clear position on Israel/Palestine
Absolutely false. Harris has been completely clear that she agrees with Biden’s policy of unconditional military aid to Israel.
TLDR If you care about the Palestinians then vote for Harris because her being president is useful for reaching a ceasefire.
The other post about this topic got locked as I was typing a reply. I feel like my comment is relevant to this discussion so I would like to leave it here. I would think this reply, the original comment, and this post are tightly related and are all about the same thing.
There is utilitarianism the ethical philosophy and there is utility. Utilitarianism is still a form a moral reasoning as it subjectively elevates the maximization of happiness and well-being. And what constitutes happiness and well-being is not universal. Utility is a method of analysis used to determine how effectively a stated action advances a stated goal. Utility relies on empirical evidence, observation and math, and is goal agnostic.
For many people on Lemmy, their goals are probably roughly summarized by wanting to end Israel’s genocide, Palestinian statehood, and general prosperity for the Palestinian people. Harris has stated multiple times that she wants a ceasefire. Trump has stated he thinks Israel needs to be allowed to finish what they started. Trump has also stated he’s going to be a dictator on day one and that his followers are never going to have to vote again.
Moral reasoning that is consistent with our goals paralyzes us in this case. Voting for a candidate whose administration oversaw and contributed to a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Voting for a candidate who is threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Not voting or voting third party when the candidate threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is favored by the electoral college in a FPTP system is subjectively immoral. We can subjectively state one of these options to be the lesser evil, but we have no empirical way to measure evil. Thus in theory, there is no way to form a consensus with subjective moral reasoning alone.
For people whose goal is to support the Palestinian people, it is useful to elect Harris, because someone in power who wants a ceasefire is a useful step to actually getting a ceasefire. Where as Trump will allow Israel to complete it’s genocide and end our democracy. This would allow Israel to continue it’s genocide indefinitely without US citizens ever being able to influence US foreign policy again.
Everyone is prone to moral reasoning. It’s intuitive and philosophers have been doing it since ancient times. In this case, there is a consensus around wanting to help the Palestinian people. But any given moral reasoning derived from our goal doesn’t necessarily lead us to a course of action that can help them. With a clear goal in mind, utility provides a clear-cut and consistent answer in the form of voting for Harris. edit: typo
I have seen no material evidence to this effect.
That’s not even an argument against Harris per say. But this insistence in a double-super secret pro-Palestinian insider movement insider her staff is delusional. Harris has been outspoken in her defense of “Israel’s right to defend itself” time and time and time again. She’s backed every effort to send more weapons of war to Netanyahu. She’s defended the UN ambassador’s decision to vote against sanctions for Israel or an end to hostilities or a future legitimized Palestinian state. She’s directly fundraising from AIPAC. At this point, claiming she’s a pro-Palestinian candidate is about as rational as claiming Trump is pro-Ukrainian.
There is a relatively broad national consensus. But we are devoid of a political class reflective of those views. Hell, two of the most outspoken pro-Palestinian advocates in the US House - Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush - got kicked out of their seats in primaries fueled by AIPAC lobbyists. Ilham Omar and Rashida Tlaib nearly lost their jobs in the same manner.
The internal institutions of the Democratic Party are openly in favor of the genocide of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and of the people of Lebanon, and of Iran. If this shit keeps up, we could see the war spread to Jordan and Syria and Iraq as well. Certainly, there’s no love lost by Americans for two of those states.
The political consensus is in favor of more killing, an escalation of the scope of the war, and free rein for the Israeli leadership in its mission to subjugate the surrounding territories. With continued US support, its very possible that the Israelis will get exactly what they desire, and we’ll be looking at a permanent occupation and continuous holocaust of native peoples on a scale not seen since the genocide of First Nations people in the US.
Here’s a user’s comment that listed three sources:
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
If you’re sitting on the October Surprise please share it. All the evidence we have suggests that Harris wants a ceasefire. While Trump wants a christo-fascist dictatorship and is content to watch Israel complete its genocide. The candidates have distinct positions despite your argument’s attempt to conflate the two.
There you go bringing facts and rationality into a bOTh sIDes debate. Bold move.
Problem is that public statements are one thing, actions are another. And politicians are known to make great many statements they then contradict by their actions.
What actions would you have a vice president take? What exactly do you think she has the power to do right now?
Then the party establishment had two options:
From just your second line I can see that you have no idea what powers the vice president has.
Where and when was she supposed to vote against or for those things?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
So from my understanding she gets the final vote on split issues. She could have leveraged her political power to push these issues to get to vote.
And which tied votes in specific should she have voted a different way on? Please name them.
Because I can’t think of a single tied vote regarding Israel.
I just wanna take this a step further and say it’s actually less rational.
What Trump is talking about is stopping aid to Ukraine, something which he had previously supported and delivered on.
What Harris isn’t talking about is stopping aid to the people killing Palestinians, a position that she has never supported.
Of course I’m not actually saying Trump is actually pro-Ukraine. But if I had to choose one, I’d have an easier time defending that claim than the idea that Kamala is pro-Palestine because at least I’d have something material to work with.
Why would you do this, yet completely ignore what Trump will do in Palestine and what Harris will do in Ukraine? Why is one only important for the one candidate, and the other for the other?
Trump will stop aid to Ukraine, and, as he has already said, will give Netanyahu carte blanche to eliminate the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Harris will continue to aid Ukraine, and has not taken a clear position on Israel/Palestine (because, if she did, she would 100% lose this election), but at the very least, has called for a cease-fire.
Get out of here with this dishonest bullshit.
Nothing I said was remotely dishonest.
Because that’s not relevant to the specific point being discussed. The comparison was Harris on Palestine vs Trump on Israel. Y’all might expect people to constantly pay homage to your candidate to signal that we’re on your side or whatever, even when it’s not relevant, but I have no interest in doing so.
I’m not voting for either or telling anyone to vote for either so this is nonsense. Trump is obviously not a good candidate and you shouldn’t vote for him.
Absolutely false. Harris has been completely clear that she agrees with Biden’s policy of unconditional military aid to Israel.