The lesser of two evils . . . is still evil


austro-libertarian
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have noticed many voters use the rationale of "Well, we're only voting for X because they are the lesser of two evils." This means the voter is choosing evil. Or some people may say that, even though bailing out the banks, car industry, [insert ANY industry] is wrong, the consequences without a bailout would be worse. And yet it is still an "evil" choice. Someone is choosing evil.

And we read in Moroni 7:12 the following:

Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

So my question to this rationale (and utilitarianism) is: Why choose evil? Aren't we supposed to choose good, despite the consequences?

I have heard that Satan likes to lead souls down an evil path and then present them with two difficult choices. The point is the person is still on Satan's path despite the choices--whether the evil is relatively less, it is still evil.

(For those interested, here is a great article on this topic by Lew Rockwell.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up with a Gran who did not have a right to vote on equal terms with men until she was 21, she was one of the first women to have that right. My Grandad and Great Uncles around me fought in WW2 and went to hell and back so I could vote. Given they held out so long meant the US also still has the right to vote, if they had just rolled over Hitler would have had enough power to attempt to take over the US..... I feel the greatest evil you can do is not vote for anybody, you have been blessed with a right the vast majority of Heavenly Father's children have not had, a greater evil would be to allow a leader to decide the voting public aren't interested so lets have no more elections.

I am not naive enough to assume my leaders in my country are uncorrupt - I do however expect them not to get caught and prove they are good at something.

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If good is not one of the choices, how does one choose it?

To mark a ballot besides to vote for someone whose name is already printed on it is to surrender your vote.

It is a citizen's right to vote; I believe it is a citizen's duty to vote. How else could you justifiably make any sort of demands of the government, whether the one you voted for is in power or another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the greatest evil you can do is not vote for anybody, you have been blessed with a right the vast majority of Heavenly Father's children have not had, a greater evil would be to allow a leader to decide the voting public aren't interested so lets have no more elections.

(Emphasis mine.)

This is what I am trying to get at: the greater or lesser of evil . . . is still evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if both men in our opinion are evil....and we vote for one...I se nothing wrong with voting....I think it would be worse to not vote....but regardless...we should always pray for the Leaders of our country....

Just to clarify: I am not arguing against voting, just voting for the lesser of two evils. Perhaps people vote for either Dem or Rep (in the US) b/c someone who may not be evil has little chance of getting elected, even if it came down to writing someone's name in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

Well, not meaning offense to anyone, I feel that if there are two people presented, one lesser evil and one greater evil then you should vote. Every vote makes a difference despite what people say. What is you were not to vote and the greater evil wins when you could have made the difference. Just my thoughts...

Link to comment

Well, just thoughts I'm not trying to offend anyone, I feel that every vote counts, despite what statistics show. What if you were not to vote and the greater evil wins because so. Until the millenium I feel that we will always be presented with two differeing evils. I would rather choose the lesser than know the greater evil won because of me not taking action. Just thoughts people...:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading a book entitled Caeser right now to prep for my History of Western Civ class.

There's several interesting lines from it:

Vercingetorix: That is the way of democracies, which offer mindless idiots a choice of candidates and then wonder why fools are elected. A people needs a king, not men who change every time someone blinks his eye. One group benefits, then another, yet never the whole people. A king is the only answer.

Caeser: A king is never the answer.

Vercingetorix goes on to laugh at Caeser and call the man a king in all but name, comparing him to Alexander the Great.

Caeser repudiates him, it's a long paragraph so I'll paraphrase it:

I am no Alexander the Great. All I am is a part of Rome's ongoing pagaeant. A great part, yet only a part. When Alexander died, Macedon died. He was the reason for his country's greatness. He did what he liked and he went where he liked. He thought like a king, Vercingetorix! He mistook himself for an idea. To make it bear permanent fruit, he would have needed to live forever.

I am the servant of my country. Rome is far greater than any man she produces. When I am dead, Rome will continue to produce other great men. I will leave Rome stronger, richer, more powerful. What I do will be used and improved by those who follow me. Fools and wise men in equal number, and that's a better record than a line of kings can boast. For every great king, there a dozen utter nonentities.

V: Lamely says: I do not agree.

What is my point in this? Both make a few right points, but the real truth I believe is found somewhere in the middle.

V (I don't feel like spelling Vercingetorix every single time) is right in saying that democracies ultimately do not satisfy anyone. A government should not be founded in which the whims of the majority always take precedence over the rights of the minority. Regardless of whether or not the minority is in the right or wrong. To always leave power in the hands of the majority is to eventually devolve to mob rule.

Replace the word 'king' with the word constitution and one may have something here. While there will never be absolute satisfaction with any administration, one that adheres to the constitution of its country will garuntee the rights and liberties of its citizens so that they may find happiness in one way or another.

Caeser is right in that a country should never rely on the charisma or idea of one man (or group of men). The man who raises himself to the level of an idea is doomed to failure in bringing that idea to pass, even faster in democracies as they have less time than even a king to bring that idea to pass. However, a servant of an idea, an idea set on paper and enshrined in the foundation a country, can accomplish great things by upholding this idea. In the case of countries that idea is called the constitution. It does not die with age, nor does it get voted out of power. All men who come from the country under this constitution should be there to support it, not themselves. They must understand that their administration is not the time to pass their ideas or their plans, but to stear their nation in a course that might keep it on course with their constitution during troubled times. Yes, fools will be produced in equal (If not in more abundance) because we do have the agency to choose those leaders we feel can uphold the foundation of our nations, but if an adherance to the law is followed then any nation can weather a bad administration.

It is only when a series of bad administrations put themselves above the constitution (Often in the name of upholding it), and create a new idea for their country that things run into trouble. This is why Rome fell. When men such as Octavian put themselves above the senate in order to 'run' the senate.

Righteous government is in simultude of the Kingdom of God. The plan of salvation and the Father himself are our 'constitution'. The plan might easily be called the Law of Salvation. God and his plan are abosulte, unchanging, and above all other laws in the Kingdom. Yet that does not mean his rule is abosulte in the sense that he takes away our freedoms. He has given us the liberty to choose good or evil. And in the church we have the oppurtunity to sustain our leaders, with rare minority who might opposed having their opinions taken into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky for me I didn't feel like I was casting my vote for the lesser of two evils this year, but casting my ballot for someone I actually trusted and believed in.

I didn't have to compromise my beliefs to cast my ballot. I'm sorry you felt you had to.

Rachelle, I am not sure who you are talking to? Me? If so, I am in Australia and did not compromise my beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It is only when a series of bad administrations put themselves above the constitution (Often in the name of upholding it), and create a new idea for their country that things run into trouble. This is why Rome fell. When men such as Octavian put themselves above the senate in order to 'run' the senate.

2. Righteous government is in simultude of the Kingdom of God. The plan of salvation and the Father himself are our 'constitution'. The plan might easily be called the Law of Salvation. God and his plan are abosulte, unchanging, and above all other laws in the Kingdom. Yet that does not mean his rule is abosulte in the sense that he takes away our freedoms. He has given us the liberty to choose good or evil. And in the church we have the oppurtunity to sustain our leaders, with rare minority who might opposed having their opinions taken into consideration.

First, We have had a series of bad administrations who have put themselves above the constitution. They are becoming more and more blatant. We as a people are losing our freedoms a bit at a time and many are blind to that fact.

Second, I agree.

Edited by applepansy
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we assign the title 'evil' to a candidate, we are exercising unrighteous judgement, and we need a good spanking. We don't get to identify people as evil - only actions and behaviors. God judges people, only He gets to call someone evil.

I can back all that up with plenty of scripture and conference talks, if anyone's interested.

As far as calling someone's politics evil, I only have opinions to offer. My opinion: Most folks who get all uppity about our reasons for not voting 3rd party, are very difficult to offer opinions to. They tend to be very much cemented in their libertarian/constitutionalist/Ron Paulish philosophies to understand the realities of America's two party system.

My other opinion: When you vote for a righteous 3rd party president in America, you are helping the greater of two evils win. And that's about all you're doing.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those interested, I wrote a blog piece on this very subject. And here's an excerpt from another post that lead me to write the second one:

To vote, or to vote by not voting? That is the question currently on my mind as we approach Election Day 2008. If I vote, then I am giving my consent to one of the available scoundrels to govern me. If I don't vote, I am voting to give my consent to none of the available scoundrels to govern me. On the other hand, if I don't vote, then my vote for the lesser scoundrel isn't there to cancel out another's vote for the greater scoundrel. If we always vote for the lesser scoundrel, then we will be slowly going down the rabbit hole rather than quickly. Either way, it feels inevitable that we will learn what the rabbit knows. So what to do, what to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, We have had a series of bad administrations who have put themselves above the constitution. They are becoming more and more blatant. We as a people are losing our freedoms a bit at a time and many are blind to that fact.

Second, I agree.

As for the first point, I was trying to make a general statement, rather than point at just one government or the other. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last election, I saw good qualities in both Obama and McCain. I really liked what McCain had advocated about campaign reform, but was a bit disappointed that he backed off - probably due to pressure from his party. I liked that both candidates were articulate, non-bumpkins and did not seem to be for sale. For me it was who had the best policies. On some issues, I sided with McCain and on others it was with Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share