The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[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.