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.
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.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
