toldailytopic: Should you vote for the lessor of two evils?

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 29th, 2012 11:09 AM

toldailytopic: Should you vote for the lessor of two evils?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[bybee]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 29th, 2012 11:09 AM

toldailytopic: Should you vote for the lessor of two evils?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

I'm of the mind that with one of these two choices there is a chance that some necessary good will happen. One of these two choices may be a step in the right direction. One of these two choices may wind up being a foundation for future growth in the right direction.
I am praying for our country.

 

[Granite]

If your available choices are deplorable, then abstain. But there's almost always more than just two choices.

 

[MaryContrary]

No.

If that's a valid excuse to do evil, then all one need do is find another worse evil to compare it to and choose between...and you've got your excuse.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Is having the choice of either Obama or Romney a false dichotomy then? If neither choice is acceptable to me I don't (won't) vote for either.

 

[MaryContrary]

I'm of the mind that with one of these two choices there is a chance that some necessary good will happen. One of these two choices may be a step in the right direction. One of these two choices may wind up being a foundation for future growth in the right direction.
I am praying for our country.

Is it better to hit your daughter in the head with:

A) A pancake drenched in chocolate syrup
B) A pancake drenched in chocolate syrup, pecans, M&Ms, razor blades, flesh eating bacteria and your husband's dirty underwear.
C) No pancake at all. Or anything else. At least until you can find something nice to hit her in the head with.



Some necessary good could come from any of these things. Like, for example, in B, your daughter learning to be wary of you since you seem to have a habit of hitting her in the head with things like that. Or developing super-human reflexes out of necessity and going on to become a super hero.

You still really shouldn't hit her in the head with that, though. Eew.

 

[Dena]

In some instances perhaps but generally, no. If we're talking about US elections there are more than two options. I don't know why we have to pretend there are only two candidates.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well it would depend on whether you were more interested in the good or the underlying principle. If the latter, no. If the former, yes.

 

[Lighthouse]

The lesser of two evils is still evil. The Bible tells us not to do evil so that good may come of it. The answer is, "No."

 

[MaryContrary]

Well it would depend on whether you were more interested in the good or the underlying principle. If the latter, no. If the former, yes.

If you see all choices as bad, "none of the above" isn't a vote for the good?

 

[Nitro]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 29th, 2012 11:09 AM

toldailytopic: Should you vote for the lessor of two evils?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

To simplify the question

Should you vote for evil?

 

[Lighthouse]

To simplify the question

Should you vote for evil?

Precisely!

 

[Town Heretic]

If you see all choices as bad, "none of the above" isn't a vote for the good?

Let me answer you this way: if I say either ten will die or a hundred and your choice determines it.

But that's assuming only the bad. And even so. The political choice is never so cut and dried. That is, the lesser of two evils is almost always the greater of two goods by another measure.

 

[Tambora]

toldailytopic: Should you vote for the lessor of two evils?

Of course.
Unless you like having more evil rather than less evil.

 

[annabenedetti]

Let me answer you this way: if I say either ten will die or a hundred and your choice determines it.

But that's assuming only the bad. And even so. The political choice is never so cut and dried. That is, the lesser of two evils is almost always the greater of two goods by another measure.

There are going to be a lot of conservatives wrestling with this issue come November. Heck, I'm one of them.

 

[MaryContrary]

Let me answer you this way: if I say either ten will die or a hundred and your choice determines it.

Here's the thing...you put a gun in my hand and tell me I have to murder one or a hundred...I'm not going to do either. Tell me to murder one or you'll murder a hundred I still won't take on the guilt of that one murder.

There is a God and it ain't me. I don't have to accept that I must do evil so that a greater evil won't come to pass. He will have His vengeance and He will ensure justice is done. That's assured.

So I don't have to choose between two evils because there is a God.

I don't require perfection from a political candidate, else I wouldn't vote for anyone. But I'm comfortable with some bare minimum standards such as, for example, not winking at the murder of the unborn.

So maybe it is the underlying principle. But that principle is the good here, when all you have to offer are evil choices.

 

[Town Heretic]

Here's the thing...you put a gun in my hand and tell me I have to murder one or a hundred...I'm not going to do either.

Not really the parallel though. Neither is the one and one hundred you follow it with. I'm not talking about you committing a crime. I'm not talking about anyone committing a crime. I'm illustrating that the lesser of an evil can still be a comparative good, that inaction can work a greater harm than action, depending.

There is a God and it ain't me. I don't have to accept that I must do evil so that a greater evil won't come to pass.

Again, you've added that new element, of you doing evil, to make the choice. But that's not the choice. Moreover, I'd argue that if you understand your inaction might do more harm than action, allowing the greater harm might itself be considered an evil act, a sin of omission, failing to save those you could have for the sake of a principle which should be fashioned to serve the good.

So I don't have to choose between two evils because there is a God.

I'd say you do. A failure to forestall is a choice that empowers. That is to say, not voting is the same as voting for the stronger candidate. Now if the stronger candidate is the greater evil you endorse him de facto. That you turn to the crowd and declare your hands washed is theater if you understand that.

I don't require perfection from a political candidate, else I wouldn't vote for anyone. But I'm comfortable with some bare minimum standards such as, for example, not winking at the murder of the unborn.

It's not an issue the President will decide. It's a thing we'll end the way slavery was ended across the pond, when a strong majority understand the immoral nature of the institution then we will amend our law to illustrate that understanding.

So maybe it is the underlying principle. But that principle is the good here, when all you have to offer are evil choices.

I'd say that's the strong argument from principle. And I've given you the problem from the practical side of it. It's not an easy thing no matter where you come down.

 

[Buzzword]

In some instances perhaps but generally, no. If we're talking about US elections there are more than two options. I don't know why we have to pretend there are only two candidates.

It's not pretense to say that only a Democrat or Republican will win.

It's experience, and looking at history.

The two parties have the entire process in a stranglehold, and the masses just follow whichever of the two has appealed to their sense of superiority.

Though judging by the extreme cynicism toward politics held by a growing number of my generation, there seems to be hope for something better in the future.

Except that my generation is being starved to death by an economy in its death-throes, while our parents and "experts" give us career advice based on an earlier, slightly more stable version of this sand castle.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 29th, 2012 11:09 AM

toldailytopic: Should you vote for the lessor of two evils?

No, wont vote for either of the 2 evils, i plan to write in my choice - don't think it will do any good other than to my conscience.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

I'm of the mind that with one of these two choices there is a chance that some necessary good will happen. One of these two choices may be a step in the right direction. One of these two choices may wind up being a foundation for future growth in the right direction.
I am praying for our country.

Each choice is a step in the wrong direction. One is a small step and the other is a giant leap.