A bit ironic, that "greater or lesser evil" choices come from an ideology that purportedly values "the greater good" at the expense of any individual or group--as you say, the question of "lesser evil for whom?" is never asked.
You say: "Proponents of the ‘lesser evil’ insist that, if you keep choosing the lesser of the two, you’ll keep minimizing evil… and in time, you’ll make evil disappear. Yet, the opposite occurs…" Nowhere is this clearer than in our elections, at least here in the US, where there are always only two choices (we are one of only 3 countries in the world with a two-party system). Continually choosing the "lesser evil" has only resulted in each election cycle presenting us with two even more evil choices than the previous ones. As long as people keep holding their nose to vote for the one they think is less bad, they are perpetuating the choice of two bads, and this can never lead to any better choices being offered.
Excellent read 🤝 I’ve never voted in my life! When all parties offer mere scraps from their table in return for your vote and all parties include the screwing over of many, I chose not to participate in the heinous game!
Many have, you’re not alone. From having a legend of a mentor when I was growing up (dad), the books I devoured, my Scottish council estate upbringing (promises made during campaigns, zero fulfilled), all led me to the eye opening reality of the false narrative we’re invited to believe, that any of them would do true good for the PEOPLE. Sometimes it’s a boot on our necks, sometimes the boot is disguised as a Mary-Jane 😂 It’s the same outcome!
The thing is, there are actions that are inherently moral choices, like killing: obviously when you fight or kill smb who is attacking a helpless victim, you are in fact choosing a lesser evil. But the lesser evil here is your imperilment of your own immortal soul. This does not lessen the good of removing a practitioner of evil and preserving another's life, or lives.
Voting (since everyone seems to be drawn to that point) is not inherently moral or immoral. In the current modern democratic setup, voting is just stupid.
I can agree with the sentiment that choosing the “lesser of two evils” corrupts morality and can even lead to a greater accumulated evil if we continue to choose it. But I would also argue that the concept (sometimes somewhat illusory) of having more options creates an even more dangerous problem.
For example, if we were to naïvely believe that we always have the option to NOT choose (which is, in itself, mostly true—we usually DO have that option), it can lead to a very troubling state of inaction. This creates a kind of “bystander effect,” the degree of danger that comes with it varying depending on context matter. In terms of greatest threats, I think about what implications this would have in political scenes and government, for example (pesky political science brain), already bereft with corruption before the added danger of the illusory “non-option.”
I suppose you could weave this into your “lesser of two evils” narrative, but I look at the concept of “not choosing” as an entirely separate, and potentially even more dangerous, evil.
How about not having an option at all? The problem is have any options. Democracy is evil because it presumes to put people’s liberties to a vote. Your argument about the perils of too many options is not convincing and it isn’t powerful enough to justify the atrocities of the political false dichotomy.
I’m not disagreeing with you that there is a false dichotomy in politics—I’m actually, very enthusiastically, agreeing with you that it is a very real issue and cannot be justified. However, there is a new problem created any way you come at this. Let’s instead take it apart logically.
My original argument was not that there are perils to having “too many options.” My objection was that there is a disadvantage for any move you choose to make. Not choosing has the potential to corrupt morality just as much as choosing between two evils would, and actually, is the same concept parading as another.
The notion of “not having any options” is illusory in itself. It simply doesn’t exist—classic case of having free will, but not being free from the consequences. We can further broaden the possibility of moves, of course—we can choose both options. But is that not also a choice?
The overarching argument is that any way you choose to move leads to a confrontation between the “lesser of two evils.” You can choose one option over the other, you can choose neither and favor inaction, you can choose “not to have an option at all” (which is just a revamped version of inaction), or you can choose both (or even multiple). You make your choice depending on how you weigh the morality and inputs versus outputs for you/your group versus everyone else. There is no reality in which you don’t make some kind of choice, which means you are ALWAYS choosing between the “lesser of two evils.” Any notion that this is not the case is a logical fallacy.
Your straw man here is that you assume that all choices must be evil to varying degrees. Are there no good choices? Can no one choose to never choose something that is even slightly evil? This is my premise. I hope it's clearer now.
A bit ironic, that "greater or lesser evil" choices come from an ideology that purportedly values "the greater good" at the expense of any individual or group--as you say, the question of "lesser evil for whom?" is never asked.
You say: "Proponents of the ‘lesser evil’ insist that, if you keep choosing the lesser of the two, you’ll keep minimizing evil… and in time, you’ll make evil disappear. Yet, the opposite occurs…" Nowhere is this clearer than in our elections, at least here in the US, where there are always only two choices (we are one of only 3 countries in the world with a two-party system). Continually choosing the "lesser evil" has only resulted in each election cycle presenting us with two even more evil choices than the previous ones. As long as people keep holding their nose to vote for the one they think is less bad, they are perpetuating the choice of two bads, and this can never lead to any better choices being offered.
Thank you for adding context with this comment.
Excellent read 🤝 I’ve never voted in my life! When all parties offer mere scraps from their table in return for your vote and all parties include the screwing over of many, I chose not to participate in the heinous game!
This is great to hear. You are better than me. I have been naive enough to have voted.
Many have, you’re not alone. From having a legend of a mentor when I was growing up (dad), the books I devoured, my Scottish council estate upbringing (promises made during campaigns, zero fulfilled), all led me to the eye opening reality of the false narrative we’re invited to believe, that any of them would do true good for the PEOPLE. Sometimes it’s a boot on our necks, sometimes the boot is disguised as a Mary-Jane 😂 It’s the same outcome!
wow well said.
I always spit in the face of convenience.
Its too convenient.
There is no lesser of.
Only the source of all things and divisions the individual creates.
Yet.
"I am just another dog barking." UG
https://substack.com/@saxxoncreative/note/c-81464477?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1u8tu3
The thing is, there are actions that are inherently moral choices, like killing: obviously when you fight or kill smb who is attacking a helpless victim, you are in fact choosing a lesser evil. But the lesser evil here is your imperilment of your own immortal soul. This does not lessen the good of removing a practitioner of evil and preserving another's life, or lives.
Voting (since everyone seems to be drawn to that point) is not inherently moral or immoral. In the current modern democratic setup, voting is just stupid.
I can agree with the sentiment that choosing the “lesser of two evils” corrupts morality and can even lead to a greater accumulated evil if we continue to choose it. But I would also argue that the concept (sometimes somewhat illusory) of having more options creates an even more dangerous problem.
For example, if we were to naïvely believe that we always have the option to NOT choose (which is, in itself, mostly true—we usually DO have that option), it can lead to a very troubling state of inaction. This creates a kind of “bystander effect,” the degree of danger that comes with it varying depending on context matter. In terms of greatest threats, I think about what implications this would have in political scenes and government, for example (pesky political science brain), already bereft with corruption before the added danger of the illusory “non-option.”
I suppose you could weave this into your “lesser of two evils” narrative, but I look at the concept of “not choosing” as an entirely separate, and potentially even more dangerous, evil.
How about not having an option at all? The problem is have any options. Democracy is evil because it presumes to put people’s liberties to a vote. Your argument about the perils of too many options is not convincing and it isn’t powerful enough to justify the atrocities of the political false dichotomy.
I’m not disagreeing with you that there is a false dichotomy in politics—I’m actually, very enthusiastically, agreeing with you that it is a very real issue and cannot be justified. However, there is a new problem created any way you come at this. Let’s instead take it apart logically.
My original argument was not that there are perils to having “too many options.” My objection was that there is a disadvantage for any move you choose to make. Not choosing has the potential to corrupt morality just as much as choosing between two evils would, and actually, is the same concept parading as another.
The notion of “not having any options” is illusory in itself. It simply doesn’t exist—classic case of having free will, but not being free from the consequences. We can further broaden the possibility of moves, of course—we can choose both options. But is that not also a choice?
The overarching argument is that any way you choose to move leads to a confrontation between the “lesser of two evils.” You can choose one option over the other, you can choose neither and favor inaction, you can choose “not to have an option at all” (which is just a revamped version of inaction), or you can choose both (or even multiple). You make your choice depending on how you weigh the morality and inputs versus outputs for you/your group versus everyone else. There is no reality in which you don’t make some kind of choice, which means you are ALWAYS choosing between the “lesser of two evils.” Any notion that this is not the case is a logical fallacy.
Your straw man here is that you assume that all choices must be evil to varying degrees. Are there no good choices? Can no one choose to never choose something that is even slightly evil? This is my premise. I hope it's clearer now.