The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[Anomalocaris]

---

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?

What does a culpability that can be avoided by facilitating greater evil says about the person’s idea of culpability? 

What does a conscience that must be soothed by facilitating greater evil says about that conscience, and about the person claiming to act out of such a conscience?

What does a “good” that presents no evidence of itself being real, but nonetheless demand that it be pursued at the expense of facilitating Greater real evil, says about the so called “good”?

What do you suppose your claims of pursuing a better notional option, without evidence of how much better things really would be if it were achieved, Nor any careful calculation of the cost that must be paid in its pursuit, nor any evidence it could be achieved at all, while willingly facilitating greater immediate material evil for others says about your morals and character?

You may rebel at the fact that the least evil Solution that actually shows evidence of  attainability is still evil by some definition of evil.  You may think that solution can’t be the best because you don’t want the best to be so disappointing.    But sketch a manifestly attainable alternative solution that, with all cost and benefit carefully calculated and weighed, is shown to be better and we can talk.  Otherwise your rebellion is nothing more than willful, spoiled, unattainable want for which you throw dish shattering tantrum.   Shattering other people’s dishes, that is.    Your morals is not that of pursuing the greater good, or lesser evil, which is the same thing.  Rather your moral is that of the tantrum, and tantrum at all cost.