The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[Anomalocaris]

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,

[onlinebiker]

The election is binary only as long as chumps keep believing it is.

[Ranjr]

Will the two evils fully inform me of the magnitude and duration of their respective evils?

[Mister Agenda]

Third party candidates are, at best, also lesser evils. But frankly, if you're not in a battleground state, it doesn't really matter how you, personally, vote; it's going to turn out the same no matter who you vote for.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

But it IS a binary choice, like it or not.

The choice between red and blue may be, but that won't mean that the choice of the lesser evil is binary.  Our system may be so irretrievably broken that voting for either candidate is a greater evil than voting for neither.  

I agree with the premise. But moral "math"? That seems like a stretch.

It's pretty straightforward, really, just thinking about morality like we think about any other thing.  The item in question comes down to what we do when presented with exclusively suboptimal decision fields. The rule is simple.  Whichever Y is less than Z, is X.  Where X is the moral decision - the Proper Answer™, Y is the moral weight of a decision, and Z is the moral weight of any competing decision.  

Does that sound like something you use in your own moral deliberations?

[Ranjr]

Will I be provided Moral Outcome Modelling Software?  To make the correct decision, I need to consult your MOMS.

[Sal]

I agree with the premise. But moral "math"? That seems like a stretch.

It's pretty straightforward, really, just thinking about morality like we think about any other thing.  The item in question comes down to what we do when presented with exclusively suboptimal decision fields. The rule is simple.  Whichever Y is less than Z, is X.  Where X is the moral decision - the Proper Answer™, Y is the moral weight of a decision, and Z is the moral weight of any competing decision.  

Does that sound like something you use in your own moral deliberations?

I agree with the premise insofar I'm able to distinguish between two choices (regardless if there are more choices present, it's not pertinent if the choices are binary or if there are more - there might be more, but being presented with two viable choices and conclude it's between two viable choices). I just think the stretch is when some sort of calculation is made. It might be quantifiable like in the OP (Trump's asshole factor being greater than Biden's asshole factor for the US election), hard to say.

I think it's too easy to determine there is some course of action associated between such two choices, unless it can be demonstrated. In a political sense, you're choosing between two people. How the hell do you know what action they will take once chosen? Are you a mind reader?

I do think that when considering harm from two or more choices of actions it is quantifiable, but that's the expected impact of your own actions. However, in this regard, it's pretty safe to infer that Trump's actions in office will be worse than Biden's because of the history of actions of the two.

[Cecelia]

If you refuse to choose the lesser of two evils, you find it acceptable that the greater evil win as long as you get to say you didn't vote for it.

[Anomalocaris]

If you refuse to choose the lesser of two evils, you find it acceptable that the greater evil win as long as you get to say you didn't vote for it.

No one can deny responsibility for predictable consequence of his action.   A person who refuses to choose the lesser of two evil is every bit as More evil Than the lesser of the two evils as the greater of two evils.

If you think Republican Party is basically evil but democrats are not good enough to vote for,  then the Net result of your existence would have been no worse than had you been exactly as evil as a fervent  republican.

[Sal]

Actions and consequences don't happen in a vacuum.

Inaction is like a compromise between poison and food. Something even Ayn Rand realized, although she arrived at this conclusion by examining absolutes.