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]