When the choice is the lesser of two evils:

[Salty]

How should we handle situations when the choices are "the lesser of two evils"

1) Vote for the lesser of two evils
2) vote for neither
3) vote 3rd party
4) vote a write in
5) other

“If we don't help the lesser evil prevail over the greater evil, we become responsible morally for helping the greater evil to prevail

 

[DaveXR650]

Always No. 1

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Always No. 1

"He who would pun would pick a pocket."

 

[JonC]

For me the best option is not to do evil.

In several movies a senerio presents this ethical dilemma to the protagonist. The antagonist tells the protagonist to kill one person he loves or he will kill both.

The idea is that should the protagonist not kill the one he will be responsible for the death of both people (or at least one that could be saved). But that is an illusion.

The ethical choice is not to kill one as by abstaining the protagonist is not assuming responsibility (the responsibility belongs to the killer). The end result is a greater loss, but the loss is a result of obedience to God (not to murder).

Voting for a lesser evil is a demonstration of a lack of faith in God. We are called to obey God, not to determine the future.

We are not morally responsible for the consequences of abstaining from evil. We are, however, morally responsible for supporting evil even if in an attempt to prevent a greater evil.

 

[Centrist]

Deciding not to vote is siding with the greater evil.

 

[Salty]

I look at it this way:
The Assembly is about to vote on an abortion bill:
If it passes - then no abortions after 5 months
if it fails - then abortions allowed up to moment of birth
Suppose there are 99 representatives
49 yes, 49 no
If I abstain - then the bill fails and remains till the moment of birth.
I could say, I will not vote yes- since it does not protect all babies.
That is true - but at least I am saving - say half of all babies.

So how would you make that deciding vote?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Deciding not to vote is siding with the greater evil.

Agreed. The Christians who tout the "voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil" view often do so with an air of moral superiority - which is also evil. But by standing by and doing nothing they are letting the greater evil into power, and thus can be given partial credit for letting the country slip into the degenerate cesspool that it is currently in.

Ironically the "Christian leaders against Trump" (or whatever they called themselves) felt betrayed by Biden - the self avowed baby murder enthusiast, sexual degeneracy advocate, and overall immoral liar. Their stance against Trump, whether they voted for Biden or not, aided greater evil getting into the White House - even though evil is why they refused to support Trump.

 

[Wingman68]

Agreed. The Christians who tout the "voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil" view often do so with an air of moral superiority - which is also evil. But by standing by and doing nothing they are letting the greater evil into power, and thus can be given partial credit for letting the country slip into the degenerate cesspool that it is currently in.

Ironically the "Christian leaders against Trump" (or whatever they called themselves) felt betrayed by Biden - the self avowed baby murder enthusiast, sexual degeneracy advocate, and overall immoral liar. Their stance against Trump, whether they voted for Biden or not, aided greater evil getting into the White House - even though evil is why they refused to support Trump.

They will then, in the height of moral hypocrisy, put the outcome on God, it was God’s will………….they never assume any responsibility, even to the point of throwing God under the bus they will righteously congratulate themselves for not being to blame for where we find ourselves. These are the same people who castigated those who tried to warn others to step back from accepting the vax. A self righteous bunch who remain so no matter the evidence.