Yes, you can say that you are voting for a block or deciding to vote for a block, even if those people haven’t heard of TDT, as long as TDT doesn’t change your decision. But if you use TDT to actually make the decision to vote, you are now very different from the people who have not heard of it and you are not controlling their decision.
For example, say that economists don’t vote, but have political consensus ;-) A lone economist cannot use TDT to vote the block, because the others haven’t heard of it and aren’t going to vote.
But if you use TDT to actually make the decision to vote, you are now very different from the people who have not heard of it and you are not controlling their decision.
Fortunately thanks to evolution most people (at least the ones who haven’t reasoned themselves out of it) have an intuitive understanding of TDT even if they haven’t heard the term.
Yes, it is reasonable to analyze normal people’s voting in terms of TDT, at least to some extent. If you were going to vote anyways, you can use TDT to justify it.
But if you explicitly use TDT to decide to vote or to decide to put more effort into choosing your vote, you are not normal and your vote becomes less correlated with the large block of normal people. I was very serious about the economist example. Many economists don’t vote for CDT reasons. If an economist uses TDT to reject that line of argument, that doesn’t cause other economists to vote. Similarly, most people can’t use TDT to decide to invest in more informed vote.
If you were swayed against voting only by arguments found in the same place you found TDT, it is reasonable to let them cancel out and consider your vote entangled with the votes of people who have heard of neither.
you are now very different from the people who have not heard of it and you are not controlling their decision.
That’s a false binary view of the issue (that you either control something or not control it). Even the word “controlling” is highly misleading. I’m talking about moral responsibility. We are morally responsible for the decision we make, which is indicative of our values and our level of intelligence. We’re morally responsible for this decision no matter how many times it’s made (for similar reasons) throughout the population.
A thief is therefore in a sense partially morally responsible for all thefts. A murderer is therefore in a sense partially morally responsible for all murders. And a non-voter is therefore in a sense partially morally responsible for all non-votings.
I’m inclined to think that everyone affects the Overton window, but some people affect it more than others. People who commit new crimes expand the range of what’s thinkable more than people who commit the usual crimes.
except none of these things generalize. You’re only morally responsible for people in the same situation as yourself. Shooting someone who is about to kill you is not morally equivalent to shooting someone for fun, and someone who shoots in self defense is not morally responsible for all shootings, just for all shootings in self defense.
You’re only morally responsible for people in the same situation as yourself. Shooting someone who is about to kill you is not morally equivalent to shooting someone for fun
Agreed. That’s why I indicated “made for similar reasons”.
Yes, you can say that you are voting for a block or deciding to vote for a block, even if those people haven’t heard of TDT, as long as TDT doesn’t change your decision. But if you use TDT to actually make the decision to vote, you are now very different from the people who have not heard of it and you are not controlling their decision.
For example, say that economists don’t vote, but have political consensus ;-)
A lone economist cannot use TDT to vote the block, because the others haven’t heard of it and aren’t going to vote.
Fortunately thanks to evolution most people (at least the ones who haven’t reasoned themselves out of it) have an intuitive understanding of TDT even if they haven’t heard the term.
Yes, it is reasonable to analyze normal people’s voting in terms of TDT, at least to some extent. If you were going to vote anyways, you can use TDT to justify it.
But if you explicitly use TDT to decide to vote or to decide to put more effort into choosing your vote, you are not normal and your vote becomes less correlated with the large block of normal people. I was very serious about the economist example. Many economists don’t vote for CDT reasons. If an economist uses TDT to reject that line of argument, that doesn’t cause other economists to vote. Similarly, most people can’t use TDT to decide to invest in more informed vote.
If you were swayed against voting only by arguments found in the same place you found TDT, it is reasonable to let them cancel out and consider your vote entangled with the votes of people who have heard of neither.
That’s a false binary view of the issue (that you either control something or not control it). Even the word “controlling” is highly misleading. I’m talking about moral responsibility. We are morally responsible for the decision we make, which is indicative of our values and our level of intelligence. We’re morally responsible for this decision no matter how many times it’s made (for similar reasons) throughout the population.
A thief is therefore in a sense partially morally responsible for all thefts.
A murderer is therefore in a sense partially morally responsible for all murders.
And a non-voter is therefore in a sense partially morally responsible for all non-votings.
I’m inclined to think that everyone affects the Overton window, but some people affect it more than others. People who commit new crimes expand the range of what’s thinkable more than people who commit the usual crimes.
except none of these things generalize. You’re only morally responsible for people in the same situation as yourself. Shooting someone who is about to kill you is not morally equivalent to shooting someone for fun, and someone who shoots in self defense is not morally responsible for all shootings, just for all shootings in self defense.
Agreed. That’s why I indicated “made for similar reasons”.