The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[tackattack]

@Anomalocaris No my morality is not that of the greater good or lesser evil. My morality is that of the most benefit for least harm. By choosing the lesser evil due to its "evidence of attainability", you're turning a blind eye to the harm it does, bottom line. I do think regularly and deeply on the pros/cons/means of politics. There are lots of things we could do to have a better benefit. That's exactly what this conversation is about.  But to entertain those ideas and debate their potential attainability, you have to first  get over the whole It has to be this A)shithead or this B) poop flavored lollipop mentality. It doesn't seem you're willing to do that. This thread is just about the lesser of two evil and I made my case on why it's a lose lose situation. Bottom line, it ignores personal culpability and responsibility for the harm certain methods/means have to achieve an end, and it is incredibly reductionist and prevents exploring anything outside of the binary black/white decision mindset which in no way reflects the nuanced way we live our lives and have built our societies.

I personally don't know what you're referencing when you're speaking of my "rebellion"  or where you got the impression that my hippie dreams of peace let me down or that I haven't calculated any costs. Seems like a lot of assumptions in there, and I've tried to lay very clear reasoning forward as to why I would prefer not to chose the lesser of 2 evils and why. I guess we'll just have to disagree. You do whatever it takes for your means to an end and I'll stick with my personal moral convictions, mmmmkay