The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[tackattack]

---

I suppose I could outline benefits of one candidate that is the "more evil". That's not really my point though. My point was that all of the benefits for both "more evil" and "less evil" candidates don't have a net gain that outweighs the evil. If I were to vote for the "less evil" candidate without seeing a net benefit to society, I would be morally culpable in part for any of the evil that the "less evil" one does. I would also have the benefit of "at least I didn't go with the more evil one" which, in my equations don't amount to any point in favor. I could not morally choose the lesser evil unless that were the only choice. Notice I didn't say the only viable choice. Viability in a broken system where individual impact is negligible anyways is moot. It expresses an opinion publicly (as per your civic duty comment), and that opinion I would be held morally responsible for. All boils down to, "If it's true you should vote, then vote for someone/thing that produces the leas amount of cognitive dissonance within you." The lesser of two evils with an overall net loss of benefit to society doesn't sit well with my conscience and therefore creates more cognitive dissonance than other option.  I'm not afraid of voting for a less "viable" candidate, because I have 0 fear of splitting the vote because I know my vote doesn't really matter. I also have no desire to stop the "most evil" candidate from winning, because of the same reasons and a broken system.

As with the example earlier, If the only 2 viable options are mother's death with or without pain, I'd choose neither.  I'd choose neither because if I chose one I would be partly culpable for the mother's death, which is part of both choices. There are other options, albeit not feasible (faith healing, chemo, cryo, living, etc.), that would sit better with my morality than killing/accepting mother's death. It's reductionist and instinctive to reduce your choices to something binary, but I believe life is far too complex and valuable  to exclude options at that level of importance.  I have more complex choices with what I order from starbucks than the binary you try to limit your decisions to. It's understandable and necessary in instinctual critical situations, but I don't think it's well reasoned or rational in it's entirety for decisions that require no immediate action.

Ah yes, your perceived culpability is more important to you than whether the thing could Objectively have been prevented, and what is the best possible outcome.    Your mere perception of purity is more important to you the suffering of your fellow men.      Of course a religitards  who shirks a intelligent humans’ s responsibility to dispense with basal superstition would also shirk a intelligent humans’s Responsibility pursue actions that leads to the best overall consequence.   The cleanliness of a conscience Such as yours is worth nothing in any grander scheme than your ego, and the basal cruelty of your choice is made even more grotesque by the absolutely nothing that Your seek to sooth at the price of other’s objective suffering.

---

My moral culpability (and yours) is what drives any decision. Best possible outcome is a broad statement. So best possible outcome is either D or R? That total BS. So if you could paint the world you way you'd choose one of those 2 as the best possible outcome? I don't think you would, you're settling for the lesser evil. I don't actively choose evil when I can help it. A decision that leads to the best possible outcome in a broke system is to fix the system. Have you emailed your representative, I have. As for the rest of your post, just STFU, you're droll attempts get tiresome. You have a responsibility, as a productive member of society, to take responsible actions that lead to the best overall consequence. The fact you're willing to compromise your personal morals to choose evil (even the lesser) says far more about you than me jackwad.

Let me put it more succinctly, I can't live with the decision to choose the lesser of two evils when both are such a shit show that there is no net benefit. If you can live with compromising your morality to add more evil to a fucked up situation and within a broken institution then more power to you. At least I'm having discussion, meetings and communications to try and fix the system instead of whining like a little bitch on an internet forum and generalizing large groups of people because of someone's individual political stance. I thought the religitards were supposed to have the holier than thou complex?