The Moral Obligation to Choose the Lesser Evil

[arewethereyet]

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]

---

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.

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?

[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]

---

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.

[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.

[arewethereyet]

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