We have to think mechanistically about morality
A certain kind of liberal makes me sick. These people traffic in false equivalencies, always pretending that both nominees are the same, justifying their apathy and not voting or preening about their narcissistic purity as they cast their ballot for a person they know cannot win. I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump, because they wanted a Trump presidency. I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election. If you don’t like the consequences of your own actions, shut the hell up.
-- Kurt Eichenwald in Newsweek
I have more forgiveness in my heart for people who don't accept that protest votes do more harm than good than this author, but I know how he feels. I also know what it's like to be that kind of narcissist purist he's talking about. I know how it feels to think that pure motives and actions must somehow translate into good for the world. It's a natural way for humans to think, and the pathology of it only really becomes clear when someone takes moral behavior very seriously, which is tragic because caring about morality is a good thing.
It's a hard thing to learn, but we have to learn to see moral actions mechanistically the way we see less charged issues. We have to demand to know *how* an action will effect the good outcome we want, and we have to be open-minded about weighing the various harms and goods that the various available options entail. We have to see moral problems as *problems to be solved* instead of just evils to oppose. This is why the Effective Altruism movement is so important to me.
So for the narcissistic purist liberals out there-- I know you have the best of intentions. In order to implement those intentions in the real world, I urge you to be more open-minded and fact-based about how to actually do that.