Pretty much what I did in NY.

At the same time if everybody viewed their vote as merely symbolic, then would people bother voting at all?

Maybe inscrutable or obscure would be a better way to put it than incoherent, but incoherent seems pretty close to ok.

I'm no philosopher though. I'm not sure I'm even ok with a moral framework.

I think dispensing with a moral framework is fine but I think if you're going to claim one it should be logically consistent or its demands are arbitrary.

I think coherence in epistemology may be over rated but as a sanity check on a worldview still has value.

It's true, a philosopher would have said ineffable

For dereds: when I say coherence is overrated I think I mean what I think you probably mean when you say it's OK to dispense with the need to have a framework.

If your moral framework leads to people sitting on their asses not voting while white supremacists take over the country, it's a ****ty moral framework.

There may be some cases where "if everybody did x" arguments are persuasive, but it's no automatic QED. If you think your opinion that NY was a lock might persuade someone in WI to stay home then you can keep quiet about it.

Along those lines I'm pretty sure we all have ****ty moral frameworks.

I agree with that. I just think some people make a model and then assume the output is always right. If the output seems wrong, that's a reason to take a closer look at something, but you can't just assume your opinion of the result is wrong when it could just as easily be the model that was wrong.

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, "hell of a lot" is an exaggeration. If you vote by mail the difference is smaller.

Voting Hillary is the LEAST you can do, its a collective effort amongst hundreds of millions of people and everyone should at least row their oar in the right direction. What you definitely should not do is not vote Hillary and use whatever influence you have to convince people that is the right decision on public message boards, twitter, etc.

If you want to argue that people should have done more up to risking their lives to attempt an assassination then sure go ahead by all means and I won't disagree with you. Its like the people who argue that we shouldn't have taxes to take care of the poor because alot Ds buy iPhones instead of donating the cash to charity, checkmate libtards! You say good point, sell the iPhone and donate the cash to charity, then they come back and say that is a comfortable apartment you are living in, why don't you live in a shack and donate your rent money to starving Africans, checkmate libtards!

If you sincerely insist* on going down this road then I don't see how you avoid the conclusion the world is maddeningly unjust, if not pointless, and become a nihilist and/or blast yourself in the face with a shotgun. Good luck with that.

* As opposed to arguing in bad faith to justify being an ******* like most Rs

I don't think you need to blast yourself with a shotgun, but the world is maddeningly unjust and pointless.

I don't usually do FYP's but this is kind of my point, if you have a moral framework that demands you take action to prevent white supremacists taking over the country it can't be limited to just voting.

Hmm I'm not sure, I think I get what your going for and I agree most people don't have coherent frameworks they have particular moral opinions without thinking much about the glue that holds them together. Which in the main is fine but you kind of need to ensure that those opinions aren't logically inconsistent.

Will Trump's Blatant Hostility Towards African-Americans Sink The GOP?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...mocratic-surge

I wonder if people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have figured out that Trump is hopeless. The President's continued tweeting and verbal diarrhea will only lead to a GOP debacle in the 2018 mid terms, so the best strategy is to get (so called) "tax reform" passed and then let Robert Mueller's investigation lead to Trump's impeachment and eventual removal from office? The partisan calculus would be that a President Mike Pence is less likely to result in a Democratic president being elected in 2020.

I suppose it would have been more accurate if I said that I thought completeness was overrated. But I think coherence and completeness are fairly interrelated. What seems like an inconsistency may often be resolvable by some extra rule in a more complete framework. But I never expect my "moral framework" to be complete in that sense. And since I don't expect I'm able to come up with a complete framework, the value of a framework seems a bit dubious to begin with. Which isn't to say that having principles, or heuristics, or some other somewhat formalized way of thinking about ethics is all worthless. You mentioned "sanity checks" in epistemology. I think of moral frameworks as serving a similar purpose.

But that won't happen. People are loyal to Trump, not the GOP. Pence will just be seen as an establishment tool, not an alt-right figure who caters to their insecurities and bigotry.

Oh look, d10 got quiet again. He'll be back in a few days and if to comes up - assert that he totally addressed my hypothetical.

Can we distinguish inconsistent from not consistent where an additional rule addresses a lack of consistency but is unable to resolve an inconsistency? In any case I generally agree that a framework serves that type of purpose, given that philosophers still dispute the correct moral framework I think expecting people to have one is a mistake.

Yep. But pithy response ("coherence is overrated") > correct response :P

Until some pedant asks you to show your working out at least.

Why? In general, what difference does it make if someone has logically inconsistent morals. It will only matter if a situation comes up where those morals collide at which point they will be forced to reconcile them.

If you are talking about this only philosophically and not practically then disregard.

Do we want our moral pronouncements to be true?

I think it comes down to what it is for personal moral rules to be inconsistent. If a moral judgement is supposed to motivate a certain behaviour and rule A motivates a certain act which rule B prohibits one of those rules has to go.

Actually, going into the election my dream scenario was that Gary Johnson would pull a bunch of votes from Trump that would cost him the election - to teach Republicans a lesson, or something. Maybe get them to loosen up on social issues or vow to never nominate a racist demagogue again. That definitely did not transpire

Obligatory "lol Gary Johnson", as he was terrible, obviously

Anyways, carry on

Can a moral pronouncement even be true?

Trump is horribad, do whatever your lazy ass can muster to stop/resist him. End of story.