A random correspondant argues against picking the least of two evils.
Quote: you don't have to align yourself toward fighting the worst evil
to be morally correct. if you're fighting evil you're fineYeah sure
( Read more... )
Is your correspondent arguing AGAINST fighting the lesser of two evils, or are they simply arguing FOR the cause of fighting evil in whichever form it should take, merely stating that the act of fighting evil alone is enough to undo harm and it doesn't matter which evil they fight so long as they do it? Because that seems a bit contradictory. In any case, which is better, to fight against evil in any form that it takes, no matter if you are fighting the worst kind or not, or to simply embrace evil and know that there is no hypocrisy in your actions? One could argue that simply working toward your convictions, no matter of how the world perceives them, evil or not makes you a moral person. Or at least a truthful one. And considering the amount of lying that people do to themselves everyday, perhaps being truthful about the cause of your actions is the most moral choice you can make.
Same difference. Once you stop comparing your actual options and selecting the best as compared to the other ones, you've ceased being moral. You're a monster. A truthful monster if you wish. I'm sure Pol Pot, like his role-model Robespierre, was very truthful to his ideals.
But where does objective reality fit into that? If everyone is faced with the same choices, they may all make the best selection compared to the other ones IN THEIR SITUATION
Crap: stupid keyboard, wasn't finished. ..., however they may all make different choices. If each person's view of reality is different, and they each make what they percieve to be the best choice based upon the circumstances, do those people all get to claim morality? I'm sure there have been some villians in the past who thought they were making the best choices they had BASED UPON THEIR OWN REALITY.
I think I mostly agree, but I'd emphasize that its not important to get trapped by others false dichotomies. As an example, I'll introduce a hypothetical example. In a case brought before a court, the defendant is obviously technically guilty, but the punishment prescribed by the law is unjust. The usual suspects only allow two options. A.) The judge follows the letter of the law, and hands out an overly harsh sentence, confident in knowing he was "only doing his job". B.) The judge discards the law, and we're well on the road to being a society ruled by men, not laws. This analysis overlooks the C.) option, the judge could resign in protest, refusing to give his assent to an immoral system.
Speak of a false dichotomy! Society is always ruled by men, even when it's ruled by law. Unless of course you think that the Holy Spirit inspires the Bishops Elected Politicians whenever they assemble in Congress, or otherwise that the King tells the word of God.
The right thing is for a judge in any situation is to tell what is just. Fuck the law if the law is fucked up. Clearly option B. And if he's sacked afterwards, then at least he did the right thing.
Comments 12
In any case, which is better, to fight against evil in any form that it takes, no matter if you are fighting the worst kind or not, or to simply embrace evil and know that there is no hypocrisy in your actions? One could argue that simply working toward your convictions, no matter of how the world perceives them, evil or not makes you a moral person. Or at least a truthful one. And considering the amount of lying that people do to themselves everyday, perhaps being truthful about the cause of your actions is the most moral choice you can make.
Reply
Same difference. Once you stop comparing your actual options and selecting the best as compared to the other ones, you've ceased being moral. You're a monster. A truthful monster if you wish. I'm sure Pol Pot, like his role-model Robespierre, was very truthful to his ideals.
Reply
Reply
..., however they may all make different choices. If each person's view of reality is different, and they each make what they percieve to be the best choice based upon the circumstances, do those people all get to claim morality? I'm sure there have been some villians in the past who thought they were making the best choices they had BASED UPON THEIR OWN REALITY.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The right thing is for a judge in any situation is to tell what is just. Fuck the law if the law is fucked up. Clearly option B. And if he's sacked afterwards, then at least he did the right thing.
Reply
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?87493-The-actions-of-Joseph-Schultz/page5
Though obviously, if you come to this extremity, you probably made a mistake in letting yourself drawn into such a situation.
Reply
Leave a comment