The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[tackattack]

---

The flaw in ur logic is that the choice isn’t binary and that voting for the lesser evil doesn’t benefit society more, just that it harms society less or slower

While there are technically third parties in America, in practice, they’re useless at best, and at worst, they might skew votes in a very unfortunate way. So, in essence, it is a binary choice. A third party hasn’t had a chance at winning since 1912, and even then, all it did was split the vote in such a way that Woodrow Wilson won. 

And, frankly, in a binary choice, harming society less or slower is the same as Benefiting society more. It may still be a net negative, but sometimes, that’s the only option available. To deny this Fact is Nothing short of folly.

The flaw in ur logic is that the choice isn’t binary and that voting for the lesser evil doesn’t benefit society more, just that it harms society less or slower

so you think harm and benefit exist as two separate continuum’s?   no wonder you are confused,

---

Harm and benefit are on the same continuum, but they're separate directions. Something can be both harmful and beneficial. Working out for example harms the self to benefit the self, this is morally acceptable. A pedophile harms others to benefit self, this is not morally acceptable. A drug user harm themselves to benefit themselves as well, is that morally acceptable? They are 2 spokes both departing from a point of neutrality and homeostasis. We qualify something as moral when it harms the least and benefits the most.

I personally also have a moral standard that states that a net good is preferred to a net bad. That means that the benefit should always be more than the damage. Choosing the lesser of two evils (which is the decision being forced here and that I only accept for this exercise) is still a net bad. That means I wouldn't be able to do away with cognitive dissonance created from selecting the lesser of two evils unless I think the net benefit to society would be greater. It's a sub-optimal decision.

Side note, I think it's good that the politicians are getting way worse. I think once we finally get to a point where we're expected to have a binary vote between stalin and hitler, people might actually decide... hey, parties are stupid and there's these other people we could vote it. I think it will have to get to that point before people stop choosing the lesser of two evils.

Another way to see it, I've known many types of parents. The ones who grew up all fucked up and twisted always say, "I just don't want my kids to have it as bad as me".
The ones with a fairly normal upbringing say, "I want my kids to do better than I did". The ones that grew up in a predominantly supportive and positive environment say, "I want my kid to be successful, happy smart...etc". If the bar is super low then it's always the lesser of two evils. If the bar is medium there is too much gray area to qualitatively assess and if its too high then there are large amounts of failures to deal with. One day I hope politics will right itself and purge this low bar, but I don't think this will happen without action from the people.

If any of you are ok with voting for the lesser of two evils, then you are culpable morally for the amount of evil that person brings in. If you are ok with not voting, then you are ok with such a low standard and the ramifications of the low standard. [/2cents]

[Anomalocaris]

---

While there are technically third parties in America, in practice, they’re useless at best, and at worst, they might skew votes in a very unfortunate way. So, in essence, it is a binary choice. A third party hasn’t had a chance at winning since 1912, and even then, all it did was split the vote in such a way that Woodrow Wilson won. 

And, frankly, in a binary choice, harming society less or slower is the same as Benefiting society more. It may still be a net negative, but sometimes, that’s the only option available. To deny this Fact is Nothing short of folly.

so you think harm and benefit exist as two separate continuum’s?   no wonder you are confused,

---

Harm and benefit are on the same continuum, but they're separate directions. Something can be both harmful and beneficial. Working out for example harms the self to benefit the self, this is morally acceptable. A pedophile harms others to benefit self, this is not morally acceptable. A drug user harm themselves to benefit themselves as well, is that morally acceptable? They are 2 spokes both departing from a point of neutrality and homeostasis. We qualify something as moral when it harms the least and benefits the most.

I personally also have a moral standard that states that a net good is preferred to a net bad. That means that the benefit should always be more than the damage. Choosing the lesser of two evils (which is the decision being forced here and that I only accept for this exercise) is still a net bad. That means I wouldn't be able to do away with cognitive dissonance created from selecting the lesser of two evils unless I think the net benefit to society would be greater. It's a sub-optimal decision.

Side note, I think it's good that the politicians are getting way worse. I think once we finally get to a point where we're expected to have a binary vote between stalin and hitler, people might actually decide... hey, parties are stupid and there's these other people we could vote it. I think it will have to get to that point before people stop choosing the lesser of two evils.

Another way to see it, I've known many types of parents. The ones who grew up all fucked up and twisted always say, "I just don't want my kids to have it as bad as me".
The ones with a fairly normal upbringing say, "I want my kids to do better than I did". The ones that grew up in a predominantly supportive and positive environment say, "I want my kid to be successful, happy smart...etc". If the bar is super low then it's always the lesser of two evils. If the bar is medium there is too much gray area to qualitatively assess and if its too high then there are large amounts of failures to deal with. One day I hope politics will right itself and purge this low bar, but I don't think this will happen without action from the people.

If any of you are ok with voting for the lesser of two evils, then you are culpable morally for the amount of evil that person brings in. If you are ok with not voting, then you are ok with such a low standard and the ramifications of the low standard. [/2cents]

If you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, your decision does make you culpable for the greater of two evils should that prevail because that was implicitly condoned, if not facilitated By your action.    If your Untreatable cancer stricken mother could die in pain or die painlessly, not doing anything to alleviate her pain because dying with and without pain are both very bad makes you responsible for her pain.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, youR decision does not make you culpable for that level of evil because given only two practical choices, that is the lowest feasible amount of evil.   If your untreatable cancer stricken mother could die in pain or die painlessly, doing something to alleviate her main does not make you responsible for her dying because she would die anyway. 

To say I would rather that greater evil prevail so I can say “I am not responsible for the lesser evil” make me no less evil, but even more contemptible, than those openly seeking to bring about the greater of the two evils. 

This is as elementary and transparent as “breathing is good”.   I find it quite likely most of those who obfuscates by claiming as you do are Not doing this out of confusion.   Rather, they are sympathetic to the greater evil And wish It not be stopped,  but Also wish to avoid the disapprobation that would accompany a forthright admission.    This is why Contemptible closet trumpers like online biker so readily resort to exaggerate the lesser of two evils in order to Set the stage to defend the greater of the two evils with a moronic tu quoque, while pretending to be above it both.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, your decision does make you culpable for the greater of two evils should that prevail because that was implicitly condoned, if not facilitated By your action.    

Some of us aren't empowered to choose between which of two or more outcomes prevail.  It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

[Anomalocaris]

If you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, your decision does make you culpable for the greater of two evils should that prevail because that was implicitly condoned, if not facilitated By your action.    

Some of us aren't empowered to choose between which of two or more outcomes prevail.  It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Presumably you are referring to the electoral vote system.    If that does apply to you, then announcing to the world that you decline to vote because it was merely a choice between two evils, and Of course you are too lofty and your brain too long deprived of oxygen By your self styled altitude to take careful note of the degree, then you are empowering yourself to effectively propagandize for the greater evil to influence areas where Others are empowered to chose rightly or wrongly.

[onlinebiker]

Some of us aren't empowered to choose between which of two or more outcomes prevail.  It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Presumably you are referring to the electoral vote system.    If that does apply to you, then announcing to the world that you decline to vote because it was merely a choice between two evils, and Of course you are too lofty and your brain too long deprived of oxygen By your self styled altitude to take careful note of the degree, then you are empowering yourself to effectively propagandize for the greater evil to influence areas where Others are empowered to chose rightly or wrongly.

CONGRATULATIONS!

You just posted the longest sentence that says nothing at all!

Way to go!

[Anomalocaris]

Presumably you are referring to the electoral vote system.    If that does apply to you, then announcing to the world that you decline to vote because it was merely a choice between two evils, and Of course you are too lofty and your brain too long deprived of oxygen By your self styled altitude to take careful note of the degree, then you are empowering yourself to effectively propagandize for the greater evil to influence areas where Others are empowered to chose rightly or wrongly.

CONGRATULATIONS!

You just posted the longest sentence that says nothing at all!

Way to go!

The fact that a person has poorly educated as a closet Trumper can’t understand a passage doesn’t mean the passage that he can’t understand says nothing.


It just means the closet Trumper understood nothing.

learn to read.

[Brian37]

Power = Moral Responsibility 


It's a simple truism. You are not morally responsible for what is outside your control. You are morally responsible for what is under your control. I'm sure we can all agree.

And so we demolish another Purity Brigade lie, "Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil."

FALSE!

In fact, the opposite is true. You have a moral obligation to choose the lesser evil if that's your only option.

In the upcoming Presidential Election (as well as the one that happened four years ago), you are (were) given a binary choice. This binary choice was prepared for you, outside your control. Even if you voted for another candidate in the primary, you were overruled by other voters and so the decision was removed from your control. You can't help it (and thus are not morally responsible) if the only alternative to a greater evil was a lesser evil.
The only power you have (or had) was to choose between the two options you were given. You have a moral oblation in that situation to take the better of the two options, however bad it may be.

It's called "playing the hand you're dealt". You don't get to play with the cards you wish for. You only get to choose the options you have.
On the other hand, if you shirk your responsibility and allow the greater evil to prevail, your moral culpability can be measured by the following formula:

Moral Culpability = X - Y

Where X = the greater evil and Y = the lesser evil

So in a situation where you are forced to choose between candidate "X" and "Y", let's say you reasonably expect X to be three times as bad as Y. To express that in numbers for a moment, X is a "9" on the badness scale while Y is a "3".

If you allow X to prevail by your inaction, whether by staying home or throwing away your vote on a nonviable pretend 3rd option, your moral culpability is 6 of the 9 badness that ensues. You couldn't help 3 of it because Y would have done that. You are responsible for the 6 of it that could have been averted.

If you vote for Y and Y wins the election, then your actions by the same formula helped to avert 6 of the 9 badness that candidate X would have wrought. Voting the lesser evil is thus a benefit to society and is thereby the morally correct course of action.

You have a moral obligation to choose the lesser evil if that's your only alternative to a greater evil.

If anyone values a pluralistic society, while no society is perfect, then purity tests in the face of a crisis that can topple that free society, is dangerous. Long term matters, and different factions of the same side cannot afford purity tests in a crisis. 

I wanted Bernie to win the nomination last time, but I voted for Hillary in the general. And Biden was not my first choice. I wanted Pete, then Harris or Warren. But knowing the damage that Trump has been doing since day one, and that he wants to be an authoritarian, I am going to walk over broken glass, hot coals, and fire ants to vote.

The minority supporters of both Hillary and Bernie camps, NOT THE CANDIDATES themselves, but just enough "all or nothing" people cost us the election. 

I was screaming at both camps leading up to 16, that one person, Hillary or Bernie, does not constitute an instant cure all on the first day. We have a 3 branch system of separate but equal branches, and it does no good to lose out of a bullshit chase for a utopia if you lose. Strategy matters, picking your battles and knowing when and when not to have them matter.

Voters cannot pin their hopes on an individual. Obama didn't run and win selling himself as the sole person to solve everyone's problems. He won because he knew it took everyone, and all branches. He didn't sell himself as a cure, but as an advocate. 

I am not voting against Trump alone. I am voting for Biden because Democrats represent to me, the defense of workers, and affordable living/health care. Biden cant do it alone, even if he wins. Obama didn't win because of himself. Obama won because we helped him. But even then Obama did not get everything he wanted. But he damned sure stopped the bleeding.

I agree, "lesser of the two evils" is a bullshit argument in an imperfect world. What choice do you have? Chasing utopias are what lead to dictators and theocracies.

[Abaddon_ire]

Power = Moral Responsibility 

OK, let's play this dumbass game.

It's a simple truism. You are not morally responsible for what is outside your control. You are morally responsible for what is under your control. I'm sure we can all agree.

False. I and everyone else has a moral imperative to oppose in whatever way available.

And so we demolish another Purity Brigade lie, "Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil."

Or we could not choose any evil at all. Your kind does not understand that and never will.

FALSE!

Yep, your arguments are indeed false. And?

In fact, the opposite is true. You have a moral obligation to choose the lesser evil if that's your only option.

It isn't the only option. As we shall soon see as I reply further.

In the upcoming Presidential Election (as well as the one that happened four years ago), you are (were) given a binary choice.

No I wasn't. That claim is a lie.

This binary choice was prepared for you, outside your control.

This claim is a lie.

Even if you voted for another candidate in the primary, you were overruled by other voters and so the decision was removed from your control.

Both these claims are lies

You can't help it (and thus are not morally responsible) if the only alternative to a greater evil was a lesser evil.

Wrong.

The only power you have (or had) was to choose between the two options you were given.

Wrong again,

You have a moral oblation in that situation to take the better of the two options, however bad it may be.

Utterly false.

It's called "playing the hand you're dealt". You don't get to play with the cards you wish for. You only get to choose the options you have.

Not the cards dealt to me so I don't care.

On the other hand, if you shirk your responsibility and allow the greater evil to prevail, your moral culpability can be measured by the following formula:

Bet you a dollar that your crap does not apply.

Moral Culpability = X - Y

Where X = the greater evil and Y = the lesser evil

False dichotomy, as we shall soon discover.

So in a situation where you are forced to choose between candidate "X" and "Y", let's say you reasonably expect X to be three times as bad as Y. To express that in numbers for a moment, X is a "9" on the badness scale while Y is a "3".

Not my problem.

If you allow X to prevail by your inaction, whether by staying home or throwing away your vote on a nonviable pretend 3rd option, your moral culpability is 6 of the 9 badness that ensues. You couldn't help 3 of it because Y would have done that. You are responsible for the 6 of it that could have been averted.

What action should I have taken? This is hilarious.

If you vote for Y and Y wins the election, then your actions by the same formula helped to avert 6 of the 9 badness that candidate X would have wrought. Voting the lesser evil is thus a benefit to society and is thereby the morally correct course of action.

I cannot vote if I have no vote. I cannot vote for candidate A, B, X or Y if I have no vote.

You have a moral obligation to choose the lesser evil if that's your only alternative to a greater evil.

But I cannot since I have no vote at all.

All I can do is observe from thousands of miles away as the US makes itself into a third world country.

Because I am a citizen of the other 95% of the world that is not the US. I get to vote for my leaders. In my country. I do not get to vote for trump or biden or any other candidate. Why? Because I do not live in America, I am not an American. I have no vote in America.

All I can do is observe as the once world leader intentionally makes itself a third world tinpot dictatorship.

And that grieves me to see a fallen world leader.

[Sal]

Given the constraints, limits or whatever, you only have 2 viable political options (for Americans).

No one is saying you have to play into this narrative/game - it's entirely up to someone to play some other game; to expand on the given circumstances they find themselves in ... except the alternative to choosing, in this situation, between to viable options - in effect rejecting the premise of two viable options - is to abandon the vote and take some other course of action.

I only see civil war for Americans if this is the outcome.

[onlinebiker]

CONGRATULATIONS!

You just posted the longest sentence that says nothing at all!

Way to go!

The fact that a person has poorly educated as a closet Trumper can’t understand a passage doesn’t mean the passage that he can’t understand says nothing.


It just means the closet Trumper understood nothing.

learn to read.

Keep telling youself that, windbag....

Make sure to use lots of big words....


Everyone will be soooooo impressed.