The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[awty]

I am somewhat literate.  At least I like to think I am.  

My wife constantly challenges the phrases and words I use, then we google, then she has a sad. It bugs her so much because she is a teacher and feels she should know more than most people. I'm not most people; I read a lot, not so much books anymore, but random shit on the internet so I know some shit? This forum has expanded my knowledge of trivial turns of phrase for example.

I enjoy hearing regional phrases as well as phrases from other countries.  For instance...I follow a couple FB pages about Cavalier King Charles Spaniels because I have three of my own.  The vast majority of the people posting on those pages are from the UK and mainland Europe.  A couple of days ago someone posted a picture of their fairly young puppy and described him as "mad as a box of frogs".  I had never heard that before but knew exactly what the poster meant.  It made me chuckle and has obviously stuck with me.

[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.

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?

The other options that have crossed my mind regarding civic duties not encompassed by the usual voting, protesting, and contacting my representatives are not fit for internet discussion and fall in the 'desperate times' category.

[tackattack]

[Sal]

@Sal well I'm glad we could agree on something today .but even those institutions can be put in  a place where the institutions survival is more important than the values and ideals. Case in point that thin blue line...

I guess the question would be how to deconstruct the survivability aspect of an institution while keeping it alive for it's purpose, values and ideals?

Temba, his arms open.

I agree with theists, especially Christians, in a way that not any of them are able to sense or know ...  Anyways, the institutions are only as robusts as the enforcement they possess from human capital and cooperation, this is beyond some maladaptive notion about buildings, roads, architecture, even human-made governing laws. We have let our notions of "values and ideals" to circumvent internal threats to those concepts. The over-used example of "being intolerant of intolerance" is just an observation to that effect.

Yes, I think you are correct. An institution is only as good as to the servicing towards its function, it's purpose for existing. To ensure that, it needs to have measures, aligned to its own function, to correct any malfunction of the institution itself - in essence, fixing itself - to make it more robust.

[Ranjr]

What does this evil choice and moral obligation have to do with the lives of 430 crew?

[Anomalocaris]

[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

[Anomalocaris]

There is not such thing, except in crass religious Inspired fantasy, as benefit that doesn’t bring some form of harm To some one somewhere.   Seldom Is any thing as harm that doesn’t bring some form of benefit to someone somewhere.   

So To me, there is no benefit except in terms of the total relative harm,  there is no harm except in terms of total relative benefit    To put it another way, there is no such thing as a benefit that is not merely a lessening of evil by the person’s own weighing of each consequence, and There is no such thing as evil that is not just a lessening of benefit.

Every choice is a choice between lesser evil and greater evil, you can phase it as between good and evil, or greater good and lesser good.  It is the same thing.

Every choice is also a choice between the good and the supreme good, and you can phrase it as evil and good, or more evil and less evil.  It is still the same thing.

How you decide, depends not on the choices, but how the choices are phrased in infantile and polemic terminology.

[awty]

There is not such thing, except in crass religious Inspired fantasy, as benefit that doesn’t bring some form of harm To some one somewhere.   Seldom Is any thing as harm that doesn’t bring some form of benefit to someone somewhere.   

So To me, there is no benefit except in terms of the total relative harm,  there is no harm except in terms of total relative benefit    To put it another way, there is no such thing as a benefit that is not merely a lessening of evil by the person’s own weighing of each consequence, and There is no such thing as evil that is not just a lessening of benefit.

Every choice is a choice between lesser evil and greater evil, you can phase it as between good and evil, or greater good and lesser good.  It is the same thing.

Every thrice is also a choice between the good and the supreme good, and you can phrase it as evil and good, or more evil and less evil.  It is still the same thing.

How you decide, depends not on the choices, but how the choices are phrased in infantile and polemic terminology.

What's a thrice in your usage here?

I thought it meant three times.

[Anomalocaris]

choice

stupid autocorrect