The lesser of two evils . . . is still evil


austro-libertarian
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Are you judging me and appropriating my punishment? I'm jk, and I understand what you are saying. However, I am not calling the candidates evil, just discussing the saying and rationale.

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

This is part of the mindset I am trying to comprehend. I understand the "realities" of it, namely that there are only two choices. But saying someone is helping the greater of two evils win by not voting for either of the two evils is something I cannot understand. Should we choose things only based on a "realistic" outcome, or b/c they are right or wrong? If we choose the right and something evil comes from it--b/c of the choices of others--how are we helping evil come to pass? That would be the individuals choosing the relative evil, would it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like I voted for a the lesser of any various evils. But, I didn't vote for Obama or McCain. And isn't that the point here? The point is simply that we don't have to vote for the (D) or the ® just because of "feasibility". Yes, the Republican and Democrat candidates have the greatest financial and political backing in a national election, but what is considered impossible because of sociopolitical conditions in one decade is reality in another. Obama's election is a striking example of this truth.

There are those who say: "A third party vote is a wasted vote. They don't stand a chance." But many people who fought for black civil rights lived to see a black president, and the growing number of Americans who have had it with the ®s and (D)s may just as well live to see a third party president.

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found this JS quote that I thought was appropriate for this thread. It is in regards to when he was running for President:

“...we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have acted conscientiously, and have used our best judgement. And if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us.” (Times and Seasons, Nauvoo, IV, 441. Cited also in Roberts, Comprehensive History, II, 208-209.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like I voted for a the lesser of any various evils. But, I didn't vote for Obama or McCain. And isn't that the point here? The point is simply that we don't have to vote for the (D) or the ® just because of "feasibility". Yes, the Republican and Democrat candidates have the greatest financial and political backing in a national election, but what is considered impossible because of sociopolitical conditions in one decade is reality in another. Obama's election is a striking example of this truth.

There are those who say: "A third party vote is a wasted vote. They don't stand a chance." But many people who fought for black civil rights lived to see a black president, and the growing number of Americans who have had it with the ®s and (D)s may just as well live to see a third party president.

-a-train

I'm a fan of the multiple party system. In fact, I believe that the US should have at least 3 more parties being considered seriously: The Libertarians Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom , the Centrist Party The Centrist Party — The Centrist Party and some far left Labour party. This would force checks and balances on governments that have heretofore assumed supremacy.

Plus, when we have the LDS get together, I could wear my Centrist Party T-shirt in a sea of Libertarian and Republican shirts.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it... It's said 15% of the US is rabidly Left and 15% rabidly Right. I bet 15% would be rabidly Centrist as well. I hadn't considered that maybe my rabid attempt to have both sides see what the other side offers is simply me being a rabid Centrist. :o

Edited by FunkyTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I am not calling the candidates evil, just discussing the saying and rationale.

Yeah, you say that, but then you continue on with this next bit. Count the number of times you use the term "evil".

I understand the "realities" of it, namely that there are only two choices. But saying someone is helping the greater of two evils win by not voting for either of the two evils is something I cannot understand. Should we choose things only based on a "realistic" outcome, or b/c they are right or wrong? If we choose the right and something evil comes from it--b/c of the choices of others--how are we helping evil come to pass? That would be the individuals choosing the relative evil, would it not?

So, are you calling them evil or not? If not, then knock it off. If you are, then explain why you're not an unrighteously judgemental person and we should pay attention to you.

But let's set aside the word evil. I really do understand where you're coming from. And I'm not even saying you are wrong. Many, if not most, advances in human rights and gains in the human condition have come at the cost of folks looking at the way things are, and saying "Not sufficient", and forcing change.

So, for folks who believe the American 2 party system is not sufficient, go for it. Wave your flag on the barricades. Persuade, apply pressure, do whatever you think necessary, moral, and appropriate to get your righteous desires.

It's just that from where I'm standing, all of you have utterly failed to show where the American 2 party system is not sufficient.

All of you toss around the "lesser of two evils' phrase as often as you blink. And your response when I point out that it's a stupid and unrighteous phrase, is "hey, I'm just tossing it out for discussion"

Y'all often point out (legitimate and true) examples of corruption, lying, and other naughty things as evidence that things must change. But nobody has ever gotten around to explaining why your way would be any better. Israel has a multifaceted political process with oodles of parties. And guess what they gripe about? Corruption, lying, and other naughty things.

See, it's a logical fallacy to point to what's wrong as proof that your way is better. You gotta do better. So, flag waver, until you actually have something to offer besides "my guy is a better person" and "your choices are both bad" type arguements, you won't be winning me as a convert.

The last thing I usually get from you folks, is a brush-offish insult. Do you have one to offer? Am I content to be an ostritch with my head in the sand? Am I a deluded fool who relishes the comforting warmth of my own walls of denial? Am I not worth talking to, because I'll never think beyond the 2nd grade level? I mean, I don't mean to come off as touchy, it's just that the last half-dozen discussions I've had about third parties have all ended up with your side saying this stuff to my side.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll throw this out there. . . Our early government did not have "parties". John Adams was opposed to parties for the exact reasons we face today.

So. . .lets go back to no parties. The one with the most votes is President and the one with the second highest votes is Vice President. Wow. . . Republicans and Democrats in a position where they have to work together? A novel Idea. How to implement this without money and as the only person who thinks it might be a good idea will be difficult. So I just hope it will spark a thought or two.

:D

applepansy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of the multiple party system. In fact, I believe that the US should have at least 3 more parties being considered seriously: The Libertarians Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom , the Centrist Party The Centrist Party — The Centrist Party and some far left Labour party. This would force checks and balances on governments that have heretofore assumed supremacy.

Plus, when we have the LDS get together, I could wear my Centrist Party T-shirt in a sea of Libertarian and Republican shirts.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it... It's said 15% of the US is rabidly Left and 15% rabidly Right. I bet 15% would be rabidly Centrist as well. I hadn't considered that maybe my rabid attempt to have both sides see what the other side offers is simply me being a rabid Centrist. :o

I think the vast majority of Americans can't actually agree with every plank of any political platform. Many call themselves Republican or Democrat, but they disagree with parts of the platform and with many of the party leaders on assorted issues. Certainly this is apparent in primary debates.

That said, we seem to continually assume that a Democrat believes in a certain list of things and so also does a Republican. The party umbrella obscures our view. The only thing that makes a person a Republican or a Democrat is their involvement with the party, which could be in spite of very much opposed views.

We might ask why someone of that sort would so participate. They each have their reason. There are many within each party trying to pull it in one direction or another. Most special interests will align themselves wherever they think they can gain support for their cause.

While we may end up with an new New Deal in Obamanomics, it is possible that Obama's foreign policy will keep us out of the international fiasco McCain would have gladly marched into waving Red, White, and Blue behind his middle finger. It will be much easier to repeal a bad economic policy than to settle international unrest. For this reason, I think Obama could be the "lesser of the two evils".

Am I a Democrat? Am I a Republican? I'm an American. I am free to align myself with (D)s and ®s wherever I can. There are people in both parties that support a repeal of the Patriot Act, an end to the drug war, a withdrawal from Iraq, an end to American Imperialism, balanced budgets, downsizing of government bureaucracy, free-market capitalism, and a host of things that I support, but neither party as a whole does so. The Libertarian Party, the Constitutional Party, the Green Party, or any of the others just don't seem to be any perfect fit for me.

I am often thought of as rabidly right, rabidly left, and who knows what. Is it necessary for me to determine if a person is left, right, top, or bottom? If they want stricter drug laws, I don't care where they stand on the grid of any political scientist, they don't stand next to me on that issue. If they want to build a berlin-style wall between the U.S. and Mexico, I'm not standing next to them. If they want to raise tarrifs to protect particular U.S. businesses in the marketplace, I do not stand with them.

I know many Mormons of all sorts of political opinions. I don't think there are any t-shirts that would appropriately designate their respective political ideologies.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you say that, but then you continue on with this next bit. Count the number of times you use the term "evil".

So, are you calling them evil or not? If not, then knock it off. If you are, then explain why you're not an unrighteously judgemental person and we should pay attention to you.

But let's set aside the word evil. I really do understand where you're coming from. And I'm not even saying you are wrong. Many, if not most, advances in human rights and gains in the human condition have come at the cost of folks looking at the way things are, and saying "Not sufficient", and forcing change.

So, for folks who believe the American 2 party system is not sufficient, go for it. Wave your flag on the barricades. Persuade, apply pressure, do whatever you think necessary, moral, and appropriate to get your righteous desires.

It's just that from where I'm standing, all of you have utterly failed to show where the American 2 party system is not sufficient.

All of you toss around the "lesser of two evils' phrase as often as you blink. And your response when I point out that it's a stupid and unrighteous phrase, is "hey, I'm just tossing it out for discussion"

Y'all often point out (legitimate and true) examples of corruption, lying, and other naughty things as evidence that things must change. But nobody has ever gotten around to explaining why your way would be any better. Israel has a multifaceted political process with oodles of parties. And guess what they gripe about? Corruption, lying, and other naughty things.

See, it's a logical fallacy to point to what's wrong as proof that your way is better. You gotta do better. So, flag waver, until you actually have something to offer besides "my guy is a better person" and "your choices are both bad" type arguements, you won't be winning me as a convert.

The last thing I usually get from you folks, is a brush-offish insult. Do you have one to offer? Am I content to be an ostritch with my head in the sand? Am I a deluded fool who relishes the comforting warmth of my own walls of denial? Am I not worth talking to, because I'll never think beyond the 2nd grade level? I mean, I don't mean to come off as touchy, it's just that the last half-dozen discussions I've had about third parties have all ended up with your side saying this stuff to my side.

LM

Have I ever told you how much I love your posts, LM? I do. They make me smile.

PS: I do agree with a multi-party system. Not because it reduces corruption(The Brian Mulroney years here in Canada are proof of that), but because it reduces the power of all parties. Frankly, I'm a fan when the government must muddle along and leave things mostly the way they are except during vitally important times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the lessor of two "goods" also good?

The Traveler

That's exactly right. As Elder Oaks has said, there are different levels of quality, as in good, better, best. But in terms of being good (from God) or evil (from Satan), it would be a judgment between the "best" good and a relatively "lower" good, both in the "good" category (see Moroni 7).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM,

I expect us both to disagree without being disagreeable. I also expect us to search for the truth according to the scriptures and the teachings of the Prophets. If we cannot disagree without being disagreeable, then I will not engage you anymore in this way. Your post appears to be nothing more than being disagreeable and a bit heated, perhaps trying to live up to the "Loudmouth Mormon" title. However, I do expect your response to this post. (You did not fully respond to my previous post, except for making the guilt by association argument I discuss below.)

Yeah, you say that, but then you continue on with this next bit. Count the number of times you use the term "evil".

So, are you calling them evil or not? If not, then knock it off. If you are, then explain why you're not an unrighteously judgemental person and we should pay attention to you.

I am not calling them evil, again--to repeat--just discussing the saying (see the OP). The OP only gave voting as an example to illustrate the saying (it also gave the bailout example, which no one responded to). However, even if you assume that I am calling McCain and Obama evil (not really the point), the irony of you calling me an "unrighteously judgmental person" (the second time you have done this) is strange though--I guess your judgment is just, and not mine.

Related to that is the ability to judge between good and evil (see Moroni 7). I would venture that the problems of relativism and egalitarianism come from not judging properly, or not judging at all (which is also making a judgment). Identifying evil and pointing it out is not unrighteous; on the contrary, it is righteous. Someone may be wrong in the accuracy of their judgment, but not necessarily unrighteous in attempting to judge. We are told to judge righteous judgment. If you are saying it is unrighteous to judge--whatever the judgment--then, scripturally-speaking anyway, you are in error. From True to the Faith you can read the following:

Judgment is an important use of our agency and requires great care, especially when we make judgments about other people. All our judgments must be guided by righteous standards. Only God, who knows each individual's heart, can make final judgments of individuals.

Sometimes people feel that it is wrong to judge others in any way. While it is true that we should not condemn others or judge them unrighteously, we will need to make judgments of ideas, situations, and people throughout our lives. The Lord has given many commandments that we cannot keep without making judgments. For example, He has said: "Beware of false prophets. . . . Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15–16) and "Go ye out from among the wicked" (D&C 38:42). We need to make judgments of people in many of our important decisions, such as choosing friends, voting for government leaders, and choosing a spouse.

The Lord gave a warning to guide us in our judgment of others: "With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye" (3 Nephi 14:2–5).

In this scripture passage the Lord teaches that a fault we see in another is often like a tiny speck in that person's eye, compared to our own faults, which are like an enormous beam in our eyes. Sometimes we focus on others' faults when we should instead be working to improve ourselves.

Our righteous judgments about others can provide needed guidance for them and, in some cases, protection for us and our families. We should approach any such judgment with care and compassion. As much as we can, we should judge people's situations rather than judging the people themselves. Whenever possible, we should refrain from making judgments until we have an adequate knowledge of the facts. And we should always be sensitive to the Holy Spirit, who can guide our decisions. Alma's counsel to his son Corianton is a helpful reminder: "See that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually" (Alma 41:14). [emphasis mine]

Moving on to the next part, you say the following. You seem to be saying I have said all of the following. Please point to where I have said any of it.

So, for folks who believe the American 2 party system is not sufficient, go for it. Wave your flag on the barricades. Persuade, apply pressure, do whatever you think necessary, moral, and appropriate to get your righteous desires.

It's just that from where I'm standing, all of you have utterly failed to show where the American 2 party system is not sufficient.

All of you toss around the "lesser of two evils' phrase as often as you blink. And your response when I point out that it's a stupid and unrighteous phrase, is "hey, I'm just tossing it out for discussion"

Y'all often point out (legitimate and true) examples of corruption, lying, and other naughty things as evidence that things must change. But nobody has ever gotten around to explaining why your way would be any better. Israel has a multifaceted political process with oodles of parties. And guess what they gripe about? Corruption, lying, and other naughty things.

See, it's a logical fallacy to point to what's wrong as proof that your way is better. You gotta do better. So, flag waver, until you actually have something to offer besides "my guy is a better person" and "your choices are both bad" type arguements, you won't be winning me as a convert.

The last thing I usually get from you folks, is a brush-offish insult. Do you have one to offer? Am I content to be an ostritch with my head in the sand? Am I a deluded fool who relishes the comforting warmth of my own walls of denial? Am I not worth talking to, because I'll never think beyond the 2nd grade level? I mean, I don't mean to come off as touchy, it's just that the last half-dozen discussions I've had about third parties have all ended up with your side saying this stuff to my side.

LM

Talk about logical fallacy. The whole passage above is nothing more than guilt by association, a version of the ad hominem argument. You refer to "all of you," "y'all," "they," "you folks," "your side," as if I am aligned with whomever you are referring to. If you could speak to the argument and not the person (or some other group), that would be ideal. I am not arguing any of the other things you mentioned above. I am not saying there should be more than two parties, just the saying of the OP. I am certainly not a "flag-waver." I am not even arguing anything necessarily specific to voting, again, just the saying.

I look forward to your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Can anyone please help me find the full text of the First Presidency letter written to an under-secretary of the US Treasury, dated 30 SEP 1941?

I have seen an abbreviated version of it in the appendix of the re-published "The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil" (H. Verlan Anderson).

It is simply the most terrific letter I have yet read.

Thanks

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