The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[Mister Agenda]

I do, sure....but that's because I work in the business of those necessary changes to my narrow interests and novel concerns.

Not an answer to exactly what I asked, but I'm happy to take your word for it. :-)

[The Grand Nudger]

The center is better than fascism, and it's where the swing voters are. The presidential election can't be won by Democrats without them. It may not be ideal, but the Republicans have it worse: they can't win without the deplorables and so they've moved so far to the right that they're losing the center. You can't do anything in the government if you lose. I left the LP because the GOP is such a clear and present danger and only the Democrats have the numbers to have a chance of stopping them. I wish I had given up my 'voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil' rhetoric sooner. There's never any choice but between greater and lesser evils when it comes to voting because no candidate is perfect, but you never have to take any blame for your candidate's actions if you don't pick one or your choice can't get elected. If you're not voting against the greater evil by voting for a lesser evil that can win, what are you doing to actually stop it or even slow it down?

That's one way to look at a representative government.  Another way is to insist that there actually be some choice that you're voting for instead of against.  Not a perfect candidate, just some candidate that does represent your interests.  I assume that biden is that candidate for a good number of dem or likely dem voters.  I'm happy that they have their candidate and I understand their vote on it's face and I expect that if the people for whom biden is that candidate....vote for biden....he'll win.  I think that would be great.

I don't think that there is a left, a center, and fascism..though.  I think that the american center is the center of american fascism.  The center of fascism is still fascism...and we're here discussing moral evils and obligations to the lessers of this and that.  I think it's relevant.  

I won't be voting for handsome joe - but I will continue to do what I have been doing.

[tackattack]

---

If you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, your decision does make you culpable for the greater of two evils should that prevail because that was implicitly condoned, if not facilitated By your action.    If your Untreatable cancer stricken mother could die in pain or die painlessly, not doing anything to alleviate her pain because dying with and without pain are both very bad makes you responsible for her pain.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, youR decision does not make you culpable for that level of evil because given only two practical choices, that is the lowest feasible amount of evil.   If your untreatable cancer stricken mother could die in pain or die painlessly, doing something to alleviate her main does not make you responsible for her dying because she would die anyway. 

To say I would rather that greater evil prevail so I can say “I am not responsible for the lesser evil” make me no less evil, but even more contemptible, than those openly seeking to bring about the greater of the two evils. 

This is as elementary and transparent as “breathing is good”.   I find it quite likely most of those who obfuscates by claiming as you do are Not doing this out of confusion.   Rather, they are sympathetic to the greater evil And wish It not be stopped,  but Also wish to avoid the disapprobation that would accompany a forthright admission.    This is why Contemptible closet trumpers like online biker so readily resort to exaggerate the lesser of two evils in order to Set the stage to defend the greater of the two evils with a moronic tu quoque, while pretending to be above it both.

---

I'm not really obfuscating anything. I'm advocating FOR voting, I plan on voting. I was commenting that if your only "practical choice" is between the lesser of two evils then you can't deny culpability for contributing to the evils of society by choosing the lesser. You can't sugar coat it and say "Well it's not as bad as xxx" unless the benefits outweigh the evils. I was also commenting that as the candidates get worse and worse, maybe people will wake up to the fact there are actually more than 2 choices and that the lesser of two evils does not benefit society any more.

OFC, all this implies, that our choice matters, that people are empowered to change their created institutions from the bottom up, or thatthe pile of shit steamrolling downhill can actually be slowed.

[Mister Agenda]

Can you outline the benefits that outweigh the evils of letting the greater evil gain office?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not sure if that was for me, but, no. I couldn't outline any moral benefits that would outweigh the moral evil of letting a greater evil gain office.

The failure of this argument to moral compulsion doesn't lie in any disparity between our moral precepts. It lies in the necessary conditions to moral obligation. We have no moral obligations to do what we are incapable of doing. I cannot put the greater evil in office, nor can I prevent the greater evil from gaining office.

[Mister Agenda]

I was thinking tack, but I'm interested in your thoughts too.

Neither can I affect the outcome really, I don't live in a battleground state, SC is going to go for Trump no matter what I do (538 gives Biden a 12% chance in SC). I guess I've internalized the idea that I have a civic duty to vote.

[tackattack]

Can you outline the benefits that outweigh the evils of letting the greater evil gain office?

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I was thinking tack, but I'm interested in your thoughts too.

Neither can I affect the outcome really, I don't live in a battleground state, SC is going to go for Trump no matter what I do (538 gives Biden a 12% chance in SC). I guess I've internalized the idea that I have a civic duty to vote.

Probably not the only thing you have a civic duty to do, and what of your civic duty when that vote is turned to theater? Do you have civic duties at all, at that point?

Can someone really drag you over the moral coals for failing to pretend as though the world were not as it is?

[Sal]

"Viable choice" is just a short way of saying of resigning to present conditions. I don't remember anyone posting in this thread they think they were the only choice. There could be a number of ways an election could go, insofar you accept the present conditions of elections in a democracy. I can guarantee you that fascists do not care. Elections to them are just circumstances they want to play into their own favor, where power is insufficient.

From what I've seen of the fascists, they only 'respect' power. Ideology and convictions don't matter to them. Words don't matter to them.

What sentence would you use to communicate your ideas, to see stuff from your perspective, for someone that is only using language as an expression for their desires, as a stand-in for power?

[tackattack]

@Sal communicating your ideas/perspectives to fascists only concerned with keeping or maintaining power does seem quite useless from your perspective. Signaling your perspective that r the improvement of present conditions are unacceptable would probably be the better use of your time/energy.

Looking at the bigger societal picture we humans do tend to create institutions that have, at their core a desire for self-sustainment. That desire, IMO, breed the kind of "maintain the status quo" and greed at any costs that we see ourselves in regularly. I think some anarchy is good, it reminds us that the methods need to change with the times. However, the intent/ideology/convictions at the core of those institutions should remain if it is valuable.