Why Vote?

[@ModernEphemera]

I look at it more from an existentialist perspective of living in good faith, creating meaning by living it. It is an action that projects your values into the world, regardless of the size of the contribution. That’s not to mention almost everyone trivially does things like this all the time. Why thumbs up a KZbin comment that already has a thousand likes? That’s basically nothing. It’s an expression of what you value and appreciate. Obviously voting is exponentially more time consuming then giving a thumbs up, but the stakes of what voting means is higher as well.

[@gorgeousgentleman5390]

To adress the problem, I think it is more important to have social network directly to the policymaker and then vote rather than exclusively voting and expect what we could not influence In this situation both are influencing one another. The influence rippling further across larger audience and not isolated within small network. This ironically exploited by bunch of people The loudest deafen the most relevant ones I agree voting rely on good faith. But lt's seem vacuous for me just having to expect something that inconsistent to happen with isolated influence on the issues.

[@ginogarcia8730]

' living in good faith, creating meaning by living it' --- awe, I love this. what more can I read that has feelings like this in the literature?

[@ModernEphemera]

@@ginogarcia8730 Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism Is a Humanism” lecture is all about this idea. You can find free translations online. It’s part of the Existentialist idea that “existence precedes essence.” There is no inherent meaning given to us, but meaning does exist, and it is our (very weighty) responsibility to create it with the way we live. In some ways it’s a very scary thought; there are no guardrails of the universe to fall back on, no one will “do it for us.” Existentialists call this existential angst or anxiety. But there is hope within (most versions of) the philosophy, we aren’t without meaning entirely, we can create it by living authentically (in good faith).

[@ModernEphemera]

@@ginogarcia8730 I replied but KZbin deleted it for some reason (happens a lot these days). Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism lecture is a good starting place

[@KoopstaKlicca]

in another world kane b would be a stellar virtue ethicist

[@InventiveHarvest]

Okay, another comment - some math in this one. First, start with definition: Utility of voting = benefits of voting - costs of voting. U = B - C If your utility of voting is positive, then you will vote. Otherwise, you will not vote. Now, benefits of voting come in two bindles. One is the benefit your vote will have on the future. Second is the utility gained from "acting in accordance with what is best" - a warm happy feeling. We are splitting the benefit into two parts. Hence, Utility of voting = benefit of voting effect + benefit of acting best - costs of voting. Or U = B1 + B2 - C Making an assumption that voting takes about an hour. Making another assumption that your time as a doctornof philosophy is worth about 50GBP per hour. Hence, we can set the costs of voting at 50GBP - for this example. Hence, Utility of voting = benefit of voting effect + benefit of acting best - 50GBP Or U = B1 + B2 - 50GBP Now, lets assume that the outcome of the election will affect your life tangibly and impactfully. In fact, the outcome of this election is worth one million GBP to you. But, there are about 66 million people in UK. If you were king, you could just decide the outcome, but instead your power is diminished by the other people. Diminishing one million GBP by 66 million makes your benefit from direct effect of your ballot to be 0.66 GBP. Hence, Utility of voting = 0.66GBP + benefit of acting best - 50GBP. Or U = 0.66GBP + B2 - 50GBP Hence, U = B2 - 49.33GBP Because you vote, then U must he positive. So, B2 > 49.33GBP Therefore, not only do you have a desire to do the right thing, but doing the right thing is worth at least 49.33 GBP per hour for you.

[@KaneB]

Voting takes me about 10 minutes -- it's about 4 minutes walk to the polling station, then about 2 minutes to vote. I've never had to leave the village to vote, and I've never had to wait in a long line. If it took an hour, I probably wouldn't bother. Or I'd organise a postal vote, which is again about 10 minutes (1 minute walk to the post box, but a little longer to fill out the form and put it in the envelopes).

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@KaneB yeah, I had to make assumptions about your circumstances. Feel free to re-look at the analysis with your own numbers.

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@KaneB let me bring this home because I don't know if I have illustrated the point well enough. Because the effect your ballot has is so small, the lion share of 'why you vote' is just to gain the satisfaction of doing the 'right' thing. But, you would probably get more satisfaction from 10 minutes of eating chocolate, reading philosophy, watching doctor who, or helping an elderly across the street. Spending the 10 minutes that you would have used to vote to pick up trash instead would not only be more morally rewarding, but also would have a bigger benefit to society. Once you realize that voting is a waste of your time, it is clear to see that it is a waste of other people's time as well. Hence, if you want to act in a way such that if everyone did so it would make society better off, you should not vote.

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

I don't understand why you divide by 66 million. First of all, UK doesn't have even close to 100% voting participation. Second of all, UK only has 40 million adults. Third of all, never in the history of the UK has the first place and the second place ever been more than 10 million votes apart. And that's what matters for the purpose of determining how diminished your voting impact is - the delta, not the absolute number of votes. All of that being said, you did ironically come closer to the real number, because you accidentally divided 1 million by 66 million and got 0.66 pounds instead of 0.015 pounds, so uhm, hurray for the subconscious!

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@tudornaconecinii3609 yes. You are indeed correct. I was lazy with my math and I apologize. Thank you for your attention and rigor!! Hats off to you!!

[@onion4062]

On Newcomb's problem, what motivates me to one box is my confidence in the following conditionals: (1) If I one box, I will get a million. (2) If I two box, I won't get a million. The same doesn't seem to apply to voting. Suppose I want the Greens to win: (1*) If I vote for the greens, then the greens will win. (2*) If I don't vote for the greens, the greens won't win. (1*) seems obviously false.

[@femboyorigami]

the claim isn’t that voting is exactly parallel to newcomb’s problem in this way but that your decision to vote affects how many sufficiently like-minded people you’d expect to vote for your preferred candidate. in the case of your decision to vote for the greens, there probably aren’t enough like-minded people to sway the results that much.

[@FootnotesToPlato]

Uncommon Kane B L

[@KaneB]

Same here! To be clear, I am *far* more compelled by one boxing than by the EDT argument for voting.

[@abs4008]

If you hold the belief that there is no compelling reason for a person to vote and yet still would like other people to vote, wouldn't you just be betting that more ignorant people exist for the system to work ?

[@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37]

Very glad I waited before commenting: the ethics section was very refreshing! I find utility such an alienating frame under which to consider voting. Maybe that is because I often am not directly affected by politics. For me it's rather like you put it: I don't wanna be the guy who pisses on the seat. I think my parents and schooling well engrained this social idea in me, somehow or other. Weirdly, once this virtue is mentally implanted, the supposed ethical reason for voting yields an equivalent utilitarian explanation: that I vote because it makes me feel good about myself.

[@petrusboniatus]

I wasn't expecting the categorical imperative from you 😂. For me (personally and in my country) even if the policies makes a difference in paper I think we are so clueless about the actual long term outcomes of the policies that, at least if We are talking about mainstream candidates, I can not say neither causally nor probabilistically that the results of one will be better than the other.

[@FootnotesToPlato]

Yeah I was so confused it’s so unlike him. He replied to me comment on the pro-natalism video saying even if it was good for society to have children he wouldn’t for selfish reasons. So why not for voting?

[@bahaman19901]

@@FootnotesToPlato to be fair voting and having children are worlds apart on the level of personal burden

[@bahaman19901]

then one could say that the only reasonable response is to become acquainted with the recorded effects of such changes. and, well, there are some changes for which the obvious harms to certain groups are inherently clear

[@KaneB]

@@FootnotesToPlato I enjoy voting, whereas I wouldn't enjoy having children. There are basically no costs to voting, whereas there are massive costs to having children. Voting and having kids are very different things, so why would you expect anybody to have the same attitude towards them?

[@petrusboniatus]

@@KaneB I think the assumption is that voting is a chore that while tiny you don't necessary enjoy. Certainly this assumption works for a lot of people including me. When you see having children and voting as a chore the same argument of "I want to live in a society with a stable population therefore I ought to have children" has the same structure of "I want to live in a society with a big proportion of voters, therefore I should vote". Even if the burden of having children is supposed to be greater, It works because of the proportionality: being in a society with 10% of voters is probably not a big deal whereas living in a society where just 10% of people have children is catastrophic. Interestingly for me also the same "clueless argument" work a little because I don't know If I would enjoy it. But about this there are statistics that around 80% of parents enjoy it, so it is a safer bet than voting. To summarize I agree with @FootnotesToPlato in that when you extract personal preferences from the equation most of the arguments overlap.

[@italogiardina8183]

There seems to be the alignment problem where a political community is a group of people who share a common political structure, often within a defined geographic territory. This shared structure usually involves a system of governance, laws, and institutions that organize and regulate their collective life. The members of a political community typically identify with it and feel a sense of belonging, often through shared values, history, culture, or language. However to vote seems an individual act for self interested motives which tend to clash with political community that may have members who have different self interests than mine. So take for example Political Equality: Each member of the community has an equal say in political decision-making (often through voting) may actually mean that through Majority Rule: Decisions are made based on the will of the majority, while respecting the rights of the minority my participation might not align with values I endorse either way. So if I go for low probability with a chance of a remarkable outcome then voting seems fine (or choosing two boxes) given its a low probability my vote will make a difference but if it does there will be a remarkable outcome for me.

[@tomyproconsul]

Fun fact: A few weeks ago Budapest's mayor just won with 41 vote difference in a city of almost 2 million.

[@Derti-fu6qu]

Still doesn’t clearly show your vote would matter even in such a case.

[@viinisaari]

@@Derti-fu6qu but you talking about it etc. might tip the scales through positive feedback loops

[@NoName-pj3yp]

Assuming the predictor doesn't have future vision (if he does have future vision, our choice is the direct cause of whether he puts the money in or not, so we should only open one box), and just predicts based on your actions prior to him putting deciding whether to put the money in the box or not, this paradox is just a trick that uses the fact that determinism is not immediately obvious to confuse people. Since the predictor's choice is based on your actions prior to his to choice, the optimal strategy is to act in a way that makes him think you would only open one box. And since he chooses the correct answer 99% of the time (and we shouldn't try to trick him, since we don't know what exactly makes him come to his conclusion), the best way to ensure we get the million dollars is to be someone who would only open one box. If the question was "prior to the predictor's choice, should you be someone who would open one or two boxes?" (1), the answer would obviously be one box, as that has 99% chance of getting you $,1000,000 and 1% chance of $0, while two boxes has 99% chance of $1,000 and 1% chance of $1,001,000. However, the question is instead "after the predictor's choice is made, should you open one or two boxes?" (2). It would be better to open both boxes, as that will always gain you $1000 more, but due to determinism, it's impossible to open two boxes if you made the optimal choice in question (1), which makes the question quite confusing. By changing the problem so that the determinism becomes more obvious, the trick to this paradox is exposed: Lets instead say that you have two fuses and two boxes. Lighting fuse 1 will trigger a mechanism that opens box A, while lighting fuse 2 will trigger a mechanism that opens both box A and B. Box B always contains $1,000. Between the moment you light a fuse and the boxes open, the predictor will put $1,000,000 in box A if he thinks you lit fuse 1 and nothing if thinks you lit fuse 2. He can see which fuse you lit, but 1% of the time he gets distracted and doesn't know which one you lit. This is equivalent to Newcomb's paradox. The equivalent to question (1) is "which fuse should you light?" The equivalent to question (2) is "after the predictor makes his choice, would it preferable if only box A opened or both boxes opened?"

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

Don't forget the third option - the predictor predicts what you will do by simulating you. And I actually think if I was in the world of the hypothetical I would seriously consider this. For example, if all you did was think really hard and follow your gut about whether you will one box or two box, the predictor can just rawdog predict which you choose by just analyzing your personality. However, if your decision procedure was something like "I will flip 1000 coins and one box if I get an even number of tails or two box if I get an odd number of tails" then the predictor would need a galaxy worth of computing power to predict that shit without a simulation. And if you take that seriously, then the you thinking it has a 50/50 chance of being the simulated you rather than the real you. And since you choosing how to box will end the simulation, the winning move is to zero box :D.

[@Tracequaza]

in Australia, every citizen is required by law to vote; I feel that this helps protect us against disenfranchisement such as what you experienced in your previous video, as well as more deliberate, perhaps malicious cases. also because of this, the idea of not voting doesn't really come into my mind as much as it might for someone from a country where this isn't required by law. I think whether or not you think voting is important, there is clearly a problem with communication and the structure of leadership if someone believes that there is no difference in terms of whoever wins, especially they also believe that there are serious problems within the jurisdiction of the government in question that should be addressed with a proper organisation of people, and from that I think it's important to then ask how to fix it. I think it was interesting to bring up Newcomb's boxes in this topic, it makes me think of how I value pragmatism in my beliefs and what I spend my time thinking about. for example, while I believe that the existence of "true" free will is much less likely than an illusion of one, and that it's more likely that all of my choices and personality are based on a combination of genetics and other experiences throughout my life outside of my control, the belief that I can make choices and meaningful change through will is more likely to actually induce the change that I want, and so I have that belief more forward in my mind and try to act on that. this is probably the most extreme example though, in most other cases it's simply when I don't have a good idea of what's true or useful. because of this I definitely feel the same way about how you described the idea of "people like me", it's the kind of thing I see a lot in media that comments on the human spirit, the idea of doing something just to set an example, and I can definitely see that this idea is successful from the prevelance of praising those who stick to their values to see them to their conclusion and set an example for others. once again, thank you for this very honest and thoughtful reflection, I particularly enjoyed the end when you revealed that voting is a ritual for you! I found that very humbling, for as much as we pontificate we're not perfect and we have to make do not just without all the answers but with relatively very few of them!

[@gorgeousgentleman5390]

So what's your opinion if we don't like all of the candidate but the law required us to vote ? I'm never been in Australia and have not well informed about the issue. Please appologize for the ignorance

[@Kamarovsky_KCM]

​@@gorgeousgentleman5390you can cast an invalid vote by just drawing a good ol' cock and balls over the ballot.

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

@@gorgeousgentleman5390 Countries with mandatory voting still have "none of the above" as an option on the ballot. You're forced to show up, not to pick *from* the options.

[@Tracequaza]

@@tudornaconecinii3609 never seen that when I've voted. A common practice here is called a "donkey vote", where a voter simply makes their rankings based on the order the candidates appear on the ballot. If you leave your vote blank or don't number all of the options the blank options are ordered in this way as far as I know; this system has always confused me since I don't think the order of the candidates is random so it could be different but this is how I remember it. The spirit of your explanation is correct as since your vote is secret if you don't tell anyone, only your attendance is required to abide by the law and not receive a fine, however I've never seen a "none of the above" option on any ballot I've voted on

[@enricocasin]

Here is the thing I dont understand about democracy and voting: is there anything at all that compels politicians to uphold his professed ideals once he is in office? I feel like I am the only one that feels bad about voting in a literal stranger. Like everybody pretends that they know trump or biden or anyone else like they are some kind of intimate friend that is going to uphold any promises. Isn't this a bit weird?

[@derkaiservonosterreich5243]

One of the biggest problems about Democracy is accountability. There is non. If a politician has done a bad job and is ousted from the party the same in green takes his place and he will get a comfy lobbying job somewhere. In a Monarchy if the Monarch looses the people and the aristocracy he will be beheaded. If an aristrocat looses the support of the people he will likely loose all his possesions. Of course the have been many bad Monarchies, but the risk of doing bad things to your own country is significantly higher

[@ivan55599]

That's why "we" or l make difference of true democracy and representative "democracy" (we vote for oligarchies and hope for the best), which we have now in majority of countries.

[@KaneB]

Yep, I have to trust that the party I vote for will do a sufficient number of the things I expect from them. I think that this often works out (I think we could reliably predict, for instance, that a victory for Republicans in the US would mean restrictions of reproductive rights), though there are sometimes nasty surprises.

[@viinisaari]

For things that have a public record, like passing laws, the situation is akin to a iterated prisoners dilemma. If you're only planning to be elected once, it is in your best interest to only act selfishly (prisoners dilemma). But if you want to be elected multiple times, suddenly it is in your best interest to co-operate (with the voters) to some extent. For things that happen behind closed doors, however, there is no reason not to act selfishly.

[@no10005]

I view political abstentionism as a kind of vote. I vote to show the total irrelevance of our democratic system. And honestly, I couldn’t care less, I live by the idea ‘vote if you want, don’t if you think it’s a democratic muzzle - what matters is what we’re gonna do to never have to vote again’ (I believe Pat The Bunny did a similar remark). I’ll always try my best to defend my friends and those in need because it pleases my ego. I may act idealistically and stupidly but I don’t really believe I need to act in a logical way to be valid. My fight is symbolic in and muzzled in a world of symbols.

[@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37]

Democratic muzzle? And something that could remove the need to vote??

[@HerrEinzige]

Voting much like liking and commenting is simply something one has to do. Not for duty, but because we all internally want to. Those who deny this are simply denying themselves.

[@jindrichjochec296]

yeeeah, but if I have to take a half an hour out of my day to do that pointless action, I'm just gonna pass. Time for regret is when I see that my vote would have made a difference.

[@AndroidApps269]

Should we do what we want to? looks like you are prescribing. but that reasoning is faulty. the "ought from is" problem

[@he1ar1]

If I don't go out to vote, then certain politicians might come along and decide for me that voting is a waste of time. I value democracy, so I vote to show that preference. Whether my vote makes someone elected is secondary. I respect the winner that the vote system provides. I might not like the winner and it is my responsibility to understand my feelings about that. If i feel that this system is under threat then it is my duty to say so.

[@silverharloe]

When you said, "I want to act in such a way such that if everyone else acted that way, it would produce the best outcome," I was reminded of Kant (even though he was a real pissant who was very rarely stable). My "I haven't studied much philosophy" understanding is that he didn't pull his Categorical Imperative out of his posterior, but allegedly derived it from trying to find a rule fitting your criterion of "if everyone else acted that way, it would produce the best outcome" (though he added a bunch of stuff about logic around that derivation which I didn't fully understand). What do you think of Kant generally and the Categorical Imperative specifically? And how badly am I misunderstanding him, you, or both?

[@KaneB]

Kant thought that he had derived rules that are binding on all rational agents. I don't think there is anything irrational, or even anything morally wrong, in acting on the basis of different principles. Moreover, even for me, what I've described in the video is only a "rule of thumb", not an inviolable law. So I don't see myself as particularly Kantian.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

The proposition that it makes no difference to me no matter what they do is correct. Everything always goes my way. Always. Voting is pointless because in my world nothing ever goes wrong. The policies on both sides are also always identical to a ceramic trinket in a Czech market. I vote with every rotation of my wrists. Why would you ever go to a special location to vote? You can do it by adjusting in your chair.

[@InventiveHarvest]

When you decide that what you want is to act in a way that things would be best, you are maximizing your utility. Utility theory does not say what it is that you desire; only that you will act on those desires. If you want to act in a way that things would be best, you are gaining utility from that.

[@SouthPark333Gaming]

I am no even more convinced that NOT VOTING is the right thing to do

[@atha5469]

Interestingly it seems the way you look at it doesn’t justify the « useful vote » standpoint. You should always vote for the party closest to your convictions (and not one that’s more likely to win) because your reason for voting relies on generalizing your action.

[@wisdometricist880]

The Newcomb discussion reminded me of a thought experiment I found interesting, also related to voting. Imagine you live in a country of a few million people where the winning presidential candidate has, over and over, won with >80% of the vote because the opposing candidate's supporters decided not to vote for him. Sometimes the red candidate wins, sometimes the blue one, but always with 81%, 85%, 100%, 95%, etc. of the vote. It has happened often enough that it will almost certainly happen again. One candidate's supporters turn out in droves while another's stay at home. Imagine you want the red candidate to win, so you wonder whether you should vote or not. On one hand, voting will take a couple of hours out of your day which you could spend doing something much more interesting and fun. Furthermore, it is a country of millions of people, and if the winning candidate has won with >80% of the vote over and over, then you all but know that your vote will have no impact on the result. But if the winning candidate wins by such large margins because his opponents' supporters stay at home, then you staying at home and not voting is an extremely good predictor of your candidate not winning. So you might after all chose to get up and go vote. But now it seems like whether you choose to vote or stay at home has a huge impact on who wins, which can't be the case. Say the candidates always win with 100% of the vote. Then you voting or staying home definitely decides who will win. But everyone else voting or staying home also determines if *you* will vote or stay at home. Obviously ridiculous, but a funny situation. It is a bit of a boring experiment because of the outlandish premisses, but what if you loosen them such that the winning candidate wins by 55%? Does it still seem as if you have an "outsized" impact on the election? The obvious resolution is that nobody decides whether to vote or not by thinking in the way described, debating whether them voting predicts the outcome and such, but at the very least I think it points to a funny game-theoretical result where in a perfectly rational society every election necessarily has either 2 candidates which appeal to very nearly 50% of the population or a situation where everyone always votes? I'd have to work out the maths for that, though, which is annoying

[@wisdometricist880]

Oh yeah and the situation where the candidate wins with e.g. 99% of the vote is isomorphic to the Newcomb's paradox, that was my initial motivation for thinking about the experiment: don't vote, expecting your candidate to win anyway = take both boxes, expecting 1,001,000 pounds vote, sacrificing some fun for a near guarantee your candidate wins = take one box, almost surely winning 1,000,000

[@KaneB]

That's an interesting way to look at it!

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

I think what's going on here is that there are two special cases at the extremums that don't generalize to the in between cases. If the expected electoral spread is nearly 100 to 0, then your vote has a high impact, because it entails which candidate is getting all the support. If the expected electoral spread is nearly 50 to 50, then your vote has a high impact, because the small delta is what you're competing against to win. Loosening from either direction to a 55 to 45 spread doesn't imply that your vote is high impact when expecting a 55 to 45 spread. It merely implies that the function which outputs your voting impact by expected electoral spread has a parabolic shape. Here is my own personal take: I believe there isn't a strong strategic justification to vote without cooperation. But globally, there is a benefit to as much as possible of the population having their political will recorded. So, I think we should create the strategic justification. People who go vote should receive 10 bucks for voting.

[@almova90]

It sems to me that what makes Newcomb's paradox scenario reasoning unable to be strictly applied to the voting scenario is that in the former there is some entity that can predict your behaviour with almost 100% accuracy, while in the latter there is no such thing. This is crucial, I think, since the existence of such entity makes you an almost deterministic system, so although your decision can't retrocausally affect the content of the boxes, this decision is pretty much just an unfolded version of some prior state of yours, which was somehow measured by the entity and used to predict your decision. This prior state is then (at least part of) the cause of both your decision and the content of the boxes, and thus those two things are causally connected quite strongly. This causal connection doesn't hold in the voting scenario. It is neverthelss an interesting association and the voting scenario version can provide some motivation even by itself. Nice video!

[@FootnotesToPlato]

With the field example it depends how specific you make the maxim. You can say ‘we can use the park’ which would lead to degradation so nobody should use the park. You settle on the more specific ‘we can use it once a week’. But why not go even more specific and say ‘you can’t use it only me’.

[@ivan55599]

How l think: 1) Vote for the least worst candidate or party, because that's what we got, unless someone does something radical. 2) Vote for those who would make things even more worse, and accelerate the fall of society and (natural) world, because it is just making things go little bit faster than in situation number 1. As you can see, l've lost hope ages ago. l think l'm leaning personally to number 2. But not voting is not an option. Even if you aren't interested in politics, politics are interested in you.

[@FootnotesToPlato]

for the decision theory thing you’re still adding one vote. You’re just adding one vote to the ‘people who think like me’ camp rather than the total voters. This doesn’t help your argument at all it’s just a more confusing way of articulating the same indefensible position.

[@KaneB]

No, I'm raising my credence in the proposition that people who are similar to me in some relevant way will vote the same way. That idea might well be indefensible, but it's not at all the same as just "adding one vote".

[@laurensbaan3596]

The "acting how I want others to act" is precisely why I don't vote: the only way to get an actually functioning society is to do away with this one, so we should all stop playing this game and come up with a better one.

[@Uhnonimaus]

I think the anarchists have a pretty good idea on how to do this, which is why I've been trying to read more of their literature. Prefiguration/horizontalism seems to be the only way to only change things for the better to me.

[@pwhqngl0evzeg7z37]

Society is not functional? And change is not possible under democract? Or perhaps only intolerably slow?

[@martinbennett2228]

I think that there may be something akin to a category error here in that considerations that have statistical force cannot be expected to apply from the individual perspective. Similar arguments could be made about why bother liking and commenting on this video (I have done both). Does my upvote, does my comment make much of a difference? - Individually not so much, but collectively it all adds up.

[@devos3212]

The idea of solidarity is important to the human mind.

[@WalRUs1216]

Nowadays I see voting as like throwing away your trash. We have a duty to put trash in a trash can. However, it won't make a difference if you, individually, litter or don't recycle. So if you think it doesn't make a difference to go vote, why also try to make the difference of throwing your trash away in public? Let's even assume there was no fine for it and it was legal. Would you still say it's okay to litter?

[@leonmills3104]

Yes I agree with you I'm a ppacifist too,voting make sense

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

I have, simultaneously, always been a hardcore one boxer in Newcomb *and* an antifan of the grounding of EDT. So I pretty much just... accept that CDT is flawed, avoid CDT in situations where it demonstrably and clearly doesn't win, and utilize CDT everywhen else (while praying that I don't stumble upon a new, undiscovered edge case weakness of CDT).

[@KaneB]

I also endorse CDT but I'm still a one boxer because I think that one boxing actually does *cause* the predictor to place the £1m in the box. Casual antirealism FTW! (I don't really endorse CDT. But I like to pretend to hold that position.)

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

@@KaneB I don't really endorse any... decision theory framework? I soft endorse the possibility that there might be one out there without edge case failures, but it's clearly not any of the ones we invented so far.

[@RealAICCl]

Also the big picture effect of voting is meaningless sure small picture it has an “effect” but that’s relativistic

[@atha5469]

That’s such an interesting way to look at it

[@Derti-fu6qu]

Voting does matter, if politics does. Politics does matter, if we are social beings. Social beings matter, if there is no other choice.

[@perplexedon9834]

That's exactly how I reason about utility too. It can get you incredibly far actually. I think the hardest problem utilitarianism faces is Singers arguments for altruism, and related arguments like personal contribution to climate change and so on. I like to imagine a "fair share" everyone has of climate emissions, just like the "fair share" of the field you describe. My individual climate impact will do fuck all for making the planet worse, but by being vegan, reusing items, cycling everywhere, and consuming products in moderation, I make sure that if everyone acted like me, humanity would be sustainable. It means I don't have to be a total ascetic while still acting in a way I feel I can reasonably be prescriptive and normative about. It also means that if we ever do implement policy changes to enforce sustainability, my lifestyle will be fully prepared for it, and so I'm never materially disincentivised from pro-climate policy making. It means if I'm ever in a situation where a decision of mine has a bit more weight, I'll be less subject to self interested bias. Your choice of person action shapes the kind of person you are, so it is kind of a form of value preservation.

[@aYoutubeuserwhoisanonymous]

I think your utility for field has a problem, because if you went out to the field more than once a week and other people noticed that might have negative expected utility. That is less of a problem in voting given sheer scale of it unless you an influencer.

[@declanboushy6838]

If free will is true, “especially” free will AND the ability to “flip a coin” (in a way where the slight movements of your hands and other actions leading up to the flip are partly affected by your free will), then a “totally accurate prediction/predictor” does not exist if you are using your free will, and “especially” if you are also using a “coin flip”.

[@bahaman19901]

seems like people are wont to interpret any suggestion that a certain action is "good" (produces enjoyable outcomes) for everyone, as deontology.

[@greyrabbit2157]

kane b whats ur view on virtue ethics

[@yoramgt]

Given your rather skeptical view of elections (both parties serving narrow interests rather than the public interest), what do you think about sortition as a democratic alternative?

[@guineapigz.]

i feel like there's a flaw built into our brains by nature, specifically to make such cooperative things work. this flaw is at odds with common sense, which is why voting feels like a paradox when we think about it

[@yoavco99]

This is such a great video wow

[@Th3lliott]

Your tragedy of the commons theory assumes that you take the utility from violating the commons for yourself and do not contribute it back to the commons. I work very hard and many hours per week, and my time on the weekend spent going to the polling booth and faffing around with it is worth a lot of money to me. Is it just for me to not vote, and then instead donate some token amount to a charity, less than the value of that time to me? Say $20

[@KaneB]

Fine with me. I don't have a problem with people who choose not to vote. I'm just explaining my own motivations.

[@Dere2727]

Do you think the tickle defence might apply in this case? If my decision to vote is indicative of like-minded people voting due to some common disposition then I will be aware of this disposition at the moment I start to leave my house to go vote, making my decision to continue going to vote no longer evidentially relevant to what others do. EDT would recommend staying at home as a result.

[@warptens5652]

but by stopping after you've started to leave your house, you would become aware of everybody else's disposition to do the same. So you have to keep going. (I think edt is dumb btw)

[@yoavco99]

Looking good with the beard, hairstyle, and shirt. Nice combo

[@KaneB]

Thanks!

[@savenok4869]

"i like to do things i would like other people to do" Ew isn't this kind of... Moralism?

[@mohn5329]

Can I ask why you disenfranchised? Sounds sad.😢

[@KaneB]

Basically because I left the country before receiving a postal vote, despite being approved for it a month ago. Check out my previous video.

[@j-ohara]

Would you object to being characterized as a deontologist? (Asking sincerely as someone with slightly Kantian intuitions on morality)

[@KaneB]

If somebody wants to characterize me that way, that's fine with me. I don't really take myself to endorse any particular normative theory though.

[@apes4days254]

Georgism all the way

[@cherubic_axiom]

the story about your mum is wholesome

[@dwbi24]

what a great fucking metaphor (the field usage) like if everybody was like me (and i know there are many) and would see genocide as a red line causing them to be unable to vote for a candidate anymore, they would look past trump and biden and discover third parties that actually have enough ballots to win the electoral vote (would be crazy and unprecedented, but is mathematically possible right now) and would simply pick the candidate who represents their values best, automatically excluding the genocidaires from the duopoly. but of course utilitarianists would say you're wasting your vote and are basically just voting for trump (or they might say biden depending on who they dislike more)

[@dwbi24]

Also the same logic for why I boycott, even when it feels like it’s just me.

[@TantalTale]

philosophical-pessimists/nihilists when you ask them to act on their views:

[@atha5469]

I love your videos

[@RealAICCl]

Was i one of those commenters? I didn’t unsub or anything.

[@KaneB]

Yes. I never implied that anybody unsubbed. I just figured that since people had asked about my motivations, some of you might find it interesting for me to explain in more detail.

[@RealAICCl]

@@KaneB I know, I just wanted you to know I still support your channel and your work even if I disagree with some takes/opinions you hold. All thinkers will change their minds eventually, it's the nature of the evolution of thought. I just made the mistake of thinking you had evolved past this stage is all. It's not a slight or an insult and I do appreciate your channel and time that you've taken to reply.

[@lucio_a]

Did your guy won? I hope so because I like your vids.

[@otavioraposo6163]

Wouldn't it be best if everybody was vegan?

[@KaneB]

Yes. But that involves a much greater sacrifice than voting. Voting isn't a sacrifice at all actually, since I enjoy doing it.

[@otavioraposo6163]

@@KaneB That's vague.

[@KaneB]

@@otavioraposo6163 Okay. I don't have a problem with vagueness.

[@otavioraposo6163]

@@KaneB would you say that vagueness means you decide not based on principles and calculations, but feelings?

[@KaneB]

@@otavioraposo6163 I think almost any principle will face vague cases in is application, and I don't really see a conflict between feelings and principles. I can have a positive emotional reaction towards particular principles.

[@philipplorke3386]

Never knew you were such a Kantian.

[@sullerized]

first

[@Philosopher-TR]

Best system is Technocracy 👍🏻

[@Yoseph-ph7hh]

aynen kanka

[@samuelmelton8353]

Still need people to appoint technocrats. And having specialists at certain things says nothing about their merit or worth to a good society.

[@Carl-Gauss]

The problem is that knowledge alone guarantee acting in people’s best interest and there still is problem of who decides whether people are actually experts

[@tontokomaimai]

Accelerated regulatory capture doesn't sound so great tbh

[@jetzenijeboer4854]

I also used to believe that technocracy would be the best system. But then covid came. So let me explain what made me change my mind: in the united states, people have built nuclear shelters in their backyards and armed themselves to the teeth with bazooka's and machineguns, only because they're paranoid of their own government. In that same country, they choose to elect donald trump, a demented and utterly narcissistic baboon, for president. And in thát country, under thát president, they still managed to start covid vaccinations months before the technocrats in the EU did. If your system is being outperformed by the united states under donald trumps presidency, then it cannot be much of a system. There can be no excuse, ever, for being less competent than donald trump. There isn't even an excuse for being almost as incompetent as donald trump. Any place where people pay twice as many taxes as americans do,where people do not distrust their government as much as americans do, wich is led by people who are more or less competent, should dramatically outperform the USA in every single way. Europe should have started vaccinations months before the americans. Technocracy was beaten by trump. Losing from a self-centered, demented baboon with half your financial resources is an absolute death sentence.

[@skufinator_rex]

интересно девки пляшут спасибо за видео