Sometimes things do not happen instantly, and we should not lower ourselves to supporting genocide just because doing that is instant.

This is like basic trolly problem shit.

The trolley problem itself is shit.

I think the question is a very, to put it mildly, useless question. It's a typical example of an analytic philosophical thought experiment, which is has basically nothing to do with real life. No one has ever been in a situation as it is described in the trolley problem.

That doesn't mean that sometimes, unfortunately, we are in situations where we are where we experience a moral dilemma. Of course we're often in a situation where we experience a form of moral dilemma. But moral dilemmas are always concrete, and you always experience them under specific conditions, in a specific context that is very complex. You have specific means to make the decision, and practically never are universal moral principles even helpful to make that decision.

As a matter of fact, moral principles are I would say empirically never really used to actually decide moral dilemmas. They are used after the fact to justify a decision, which is a typical form of moral communication.

you're conflating "refusing to play" with "choosing not to pull the lever." choosing not to pull the lever still accepts the framing. it still says "these are the only tracks, this is the only lever, so my only choice is yes or no."

actual refusal means rejecting the premise entirely. it means organizing outside the trolley and/or building a world where the trolley doesn't run in the first place.

you say there's no magical third choice. that's exactly what people said to the abolitionists and the suffragettes and to everyone else who ever refused a rigged game, but built a new one anyway.

so no, refusing to play isn't playing along. it's the first real move anyone makes when they stop believing the lever is the only tool in existence.

there is no option for a magical third choice.

There's no lever you can pull as a third choice because the lever only operates inside the bounds of the "system" of the rail network. It's working as designed. So break the rails if it is an inevitability that people get tied to the tracks.

The system is just as immutable as the divine right of kings. Choosing to campaign on lever pulls within the system instead of focusing on systemic restructuring tells me a couple of things: 1) You aren't tied to both sides of the track. 2) You're fine with giving validity to a system that bakes genocide into itself because your comfort relies on someone being tied to the both tracks, and at the moment, that isn't you.

Refusing to pull the lever doesn't prevent you from working outside the bounds of the rail network. It might be worth considering that instead of the belief in slowly changing the democrats with slow constant pressure, the system is changing you to be more accepting of the unacceptable.

you're proving my point here without realizing it.

the two tracks are an american framing. pull the lever or don't. vote for the lesser evil or don't. those are the only choices your system lets you consider.

but here's what you're missing: both tracks were laid by the same people fostering the genocide. the lever is a prop. "pulling it" doesn't stop the train; it just makes you feel like you did something.

and here's the part many won't touch: the same system you're defending as "pragmatic" has a body count outside your borders that dwarfs anything it saves inside them. a conservative estimate puts the number of people killed by us sanctions alone at 38 million over 50 years (and that's ignoring the genocides and ethnic cleansings). that's not a rounding error. that's more people than the population of canada. that's the cost of your "realism."

furthermore, consider the numbers most americans care about: how many americans has the system saved by being "pragmatic" inside the voting booth? because 38 million dead outside vs. dramatically less inside -- that's not a trade-off; that's a slaughter masked as strategy.

western teleologists have self groomed themselves into thinking pragmatism means picking between two options handed down by the ruling class. anything outside that frame gets called "virtue signaling" or "immature" because it threatens the real game: managing genocide, not ending it.

deontology isn't about clean hands. it's about refusal to legitimize a system where genocide is a natural outcome. and that refusal isn't inaction -- it's the foundation of any actual alternative. you can't build a track that doesn't lead to a better destination if you keep praising people for getting good at pulling the lever.

also the person who refuse isn't plugging their ears; they're saying the whole track-switching game is rigged so they're not going to cooperate. that's not self-centered. that's the only sane response to a system that made you believe the two tracks is the only world that exists.