lesser of two evils

[dairygirl4u2c]

Yes I'm a philosophy nut. I'd like a theoretical explanation of something. If the ends doesn't justify the means. And in this next if you have a scenario. Three choices people are voting on..

A is the moral good. B is the lesser of the good. And C is evil. If you chose A then C will occur because everyone else is choosing C. So you might say chose the less of the two evils B because that will have a chance of being chosen by everyone.

Aren't you being decietful (while probably unknowingly) because it's not the lesser of two evils that's the point, but the lesser of all evils. Aren't you justifying the means by voting for the lesser of two evils?

[reelguy227]

Whats up with your sig ?Since when are Catholics ignorant ? Why do you put that on a totally Catholic website ?

God Bless,
Ricky

[dairygirl4u2c]

I figured some would not know the context so you finally made me realize that telling just you and whoever read this isn't gonna do a lot and that I should thought I'd put the context in my sig as well.

Also, back on track of original thread post discussion.

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[foundsheep]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 20 2004, 08:28 PM'] Yes I'm a philosophy nut. I'd like a theoretical explanation of something. If the ends doesn't justify the means. And in this next if you have a scenario. Three choices people are voting on..

A is the moral good. B is the lesser of the good. And C is evil. If you chose A then C will occur because everyone else is choosing C. So you might say chose the less of the two evils B because that will have a chance of being chosen by everyone.

Aren't you being decietful (while probably unknowingly) because it's not the lesser of two evils that's the point, but the lesser of all evils. Aren't you justifying the means by voting for the lesser of two evils? [/quote]
Are you saying that one should choose someone just cause they are probably going to win? If B is even partly evil than B is not a good choice. People need to learn to take a stand and choose A.

[qfnol31]

The point is to minimize the evil. If you vote for B, then you have to know that you're materially participating in evil. If you vote for C, you're probably formally cooperating with evil (you're directly supporting the evil). If you vote A, then you're still materially participating in evil because you're allowing C to win by not trying everything to stop him. If you don't vote it's evil because you can stop C from winning. Pretty much, no matter what you do, it seems that you're participating in evil. The question is, how do you minimize this, and are you doing it for the evil's sake or for another reason?


Sorry, that's a lot of terms from Moral Theology. Did you get any of that?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='foundsheep' date='Oct 20 2004, 11:57 PM'] Are you saying that one should choose someone just cause they are probably going to win? If B is even partly evil than B is not a good choice. People need to learn to take a stand and choose A. [/quote]
I would only say that in this case that will still be (materially) participating in evil just because you're allowing an evil to happen, not by your vote, but by not keeping him out. It's a hard decision really.

[dairygirl4u2c]

That's a good point qfnol. I never really thought of it that way. I take reassurance in that I at least found an answer to that while many would just vote for B without question.

But isn't that the case usually when people want to justify the ends? They say, I don't want that evil thing to happen, so I will do this lesser evil thing. And then that's where people always say, no the end does not justify the means. That person could say, well by not doing the little evil I'm materially allowing the greater evil.

Maybe I'm taking the intended uses of the phrase "ends do not justify the means", so when WOULD you say that the ends does not justify the means?

[heyyoimjohnny]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 21 2004, 11:05 AM'] I would only say that in this case that will still be (materially) participating in evil just because you're allowing an evil to happen, not by your vote, but by not keeping him out. It's a hard decision really. [/quote]

So if standing up for A, which is good, causes evil, and standing up for B, which is less than good, or mildly evil, causes evil, and standing up for C causes evil anyways, what's the point in supporting any of them? But of course, it would cause evil. So the logical answer would be B.

As Christians (and Catholics at that), we are compelled to stand up for good. Usually standing up for good makes it harder on us. But when supporting good makes it harder on the world, would that make it good at all? Hmm... speculation there...

Lets give evil a unit of measurment. Also, lets take the option of not voting out of the situation.
If elected,
A: 0 evil will be done
B: 50 evil will be done
C: 100 evil will be done

Vote for A: worthless, C is elected, 100 evil is done
Vote for B: possibly elected, 50 evil is done
Vote for C: possible elected, 100 Evil is done

Looking at it this way (really far out, but the only way I could think to make point), then voting B would reduce overall evil factor.

Maybe it is justifiable. I'm still torn, but it makes sense... I don't know what I'd do in such a situation. I'll just pray it never happens...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 21 2004, 11:54 AM'] That's a good point qfnol. I never really thought of it that way. I take reassurance in that I at least found an answer to that while many would just vote for B without question. [/quote]
Thank you, I was a person who was originally thinking of voting for a candidate like A, but then realized what that meant (most likely aiding a candidate like C to win).

[quote]But isn't that the case usually when people want to justify the ends? They say, I don't want that evil thing to happen, so I will do this lesser evil thing. And then that's where people always say, no the end does not justify the means. That person could say, well by not doing the little evil I'm materially allowing the greater evil.[/quote]

In this case there still is a chance to lessen the evil. If you aren't trying to minimize evil, then you are no longer seeking for good, but something else, meaning that there is an evil (lack of a due good) present.

Simply put, if you're trying to seek at the Greatest Good (God) then you will want to minimize evil, and so by not minimizing evil, you can't be seeking at God.

[quote]Maybe I'm taking the intended uses of the phrase "ends do not justify the means", so when WOULD you say that the ends does not justify the means?[/quote]

I don't think the ends would ever justify the means, but rather the means matter. That's part of why you have to admit to materially participating in evil in the case I mentioned above.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Not to belittle your original argument, it is very good. But I still think it is the standard arguement against saying that the end does justify the means... only in a more complex. The complexity made you overlook what you were really saying. I didn't fully realize it when I wrote the last post. I did have something something in the back of my mind that was dissonant. And I can see how you thought your argument was sound.

[quote]In this case there still is a chance to lessen the evil. If you aren't trying to minimize evil, then you are no longer seeking for good, but something else, meaning that there is an evil (lack of a due good) present.

Simply put, if you're trying to seek at the Greatest Good (God) then you will want to minimize evil, and so by not minimizing evil, you can't be seeking at God.[/quote]

So why can't we just say that the ends justifies the means always? Aren't you in a granted more intelligent manner saying that the end justifies the means?

I say that because. As I've said, usually people want to say that the end justifies the means when they are reducing the great evil by doing a little evil. And people say "no the end does not justify the means". The person doing the little evil could argue that they would be materially cooperating by not doint the little. (if we were to shift gears and say that none of the choices would be met then that trumps the argument that not voting is bad)

[quote]Maybe I'm taking the intended uses of the phrase "ends do not justify the means", so when WOULD you say that the ends does not justify the means? [/quote]

This is by me. What I meant was ""justify the means" out of context".

I don't see why we can't take your material cooperation thing to prove that indeed the end does justify the means. I say this, as I said, because anyone can say that "well if I do this little evil, then that big evil will result". Thus justifying the means.

I see two possible solutions to this problem. One is that people have always been insisting that the end does not justify the means in a wrong context or a wrong way to people who want to help the greater good. Perhaps the EJTM just means something like, cheating isn't good even if by doing it you got a good grade. You'll notice good grades is a positive, not a greater evil. But I think this is somewhat streching it... I say this only because the standard understanding is that you should not reduce great evil by doing little evil. It is indeed possible I am taking the intended use of the phrase out of context along with most people taking it out of context.

The other solution is that the ends do justify the means. Personally, I've never ruled that out. In fact I've leaned more that way all along. :ph34r:

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"well if I do this little evil, then that big evil will result". [/quote]

that big evil won't result. my bad (no satan made me do it no really it's my fault i'm possessed no really it my fault for real this time)

[Guest Aluigi]

if C is already occuring, then to choose B would not be to choose to do evil, rather to choose LESS of C. It's like, you've already got both feet standing in a big pile of manure (C is already in affect). To choose A would be to attempt to JUMP out of the manure, both feet at once. You are likely to fall flat on your face and end up with manure in your face and bruised up (even more of C). But by choosing B you are not choosing to keep the left foot in the manure, but rather to take the right foot out first. It is GOOD to get your right foot out of the manure, you are not doing any evil. Once your right foot is out of the manure, then you can take your left foot out. So it's not really the lesser of two evils, in my opinion. You are not doing any evil means, you are doing good means. Take one foot out of manure= good.

If there was already one foot out of the manure (B already in effect), you must pick A so long as it's not so stuck back in there that you'll trip by moving it so soon.

I like this analogy, I came up with it all by myself

[dairygirl4u2c]

I see two probs with this issue. There may be more I don't know without thinking too much.

Actually my theory is that we are not in manure right now. To use your analogy. We have to potential to be there and we are not there now. I assume you're probably thinking about the elections coming up unconsciously.

The other prob. But if I were to make the stipulation that we are in maure and want to get out then I could argue that you're doing a evilmanure to get out because you're gonna have to face manure to get out of manure. I mean you have to admit your going to do evil to get out of evil. manure if you're inclined to think of manure. jk You said yourself you're only doing less, but you have to do it to get out. I think we're in like a catch 22 or something I dunno I'm babbling. But the "catch" pardon pun and confusion is that there's no way for you to argue that you're gonna achieve an end to it unless you do an evil.

Taking the foot out is good. The means to do it is bad. If you chose A then you'd stay in the manure but would not have did something not evil that could have gotten you out at least in theory.

I further don't like the analogy in general because as even theRCC has said, with every similarity in an analogy there is a greater dissimilarity. Also note that a lot of logic books I'm not just saying this say that using analogies can and is an error if you base it only on that. It is good for thinking about the issue, but you have to always keep that in mind.

But either way you look at it. If you're going to argue that the only way to get out is to do less evil, then you're still doing evil, even if the end result is good. You're basically arguing what the other guy argued only with an analogy. (not sure if intended) But either way you're doing less evil which is evil to do good, thus justifying the means. And that is what people have been wanting to do for so long only to have been told, "no the ends does not justify the means".

[Guest Aluigi]

no, we are not doing ANY evil at all. We are introducing good. Our action is to take the right foot out of the manure. The left foot will undoubtedly hold us back for a bit, but it is not OUR action of moving the right foot out that causes the left foot to remain. My analogy simply gives me an easier way to talk about it. I'm certainly not saying that every aspect of the analogy will correspond to something regarding our topic at hand.

As far as I see it, (presuming C is currently in effect) to do B is not to do a single evil action, but rather to ommit the full extent of the good. label the evil action done by B if C is already there. If A was already there, then doing B would be doing something evil. But if C is already there, B is something good.

[dairygirl4u2c]

So for one. We are now arguing about getting out of evil instead of preventing evil. Would you agree that you're really doing evil even if it's a less if you are preventing it? (otherwise you could say that for anything evil)(it seems like just war preventative is wrong now by definition of ends justifying means but that's another story)

[quote]no, we are not doing ANY evil at all. We are introducing good. Our action is to take the right foot out of the manure. The left foot will undoubtedly hold us back for a bit, but it is not OUR action of moving the right foot out that causes the left foot to remain. My analogy simply gives me an easier way to talk about it. I'm certainly not saying that every aspect of the analogy will correspond to something regarding our topic at hand.[/quote]

I think if you are going to presume that moving the foot out is not evil at all there are a hew things to consider. One is that you said this:

[quote]if C is already occuring, then to choose B would not be to choose to do evil, rather to choose LESS of C.[/quote]*

Maybe you didn't really mean that. I've been inconsistent a lot only to have to correct myself not a big deal. You said less C, less evil. Less evil is evil. And now you're saying it is not evil at all but good.

If you meant that removing the foot is inherently good then I have a couple more issues. One is that I think the analogy does not correspond because my premisses said that by definition it is less evil. So I think I first should point out something you are doing to clear this up. You are saying that my premises are false to begin with in that it's not less evil but that it is good. I could grant that for the manure thing because you can define moving out in an instant as good. FI don't think you can do this for the original voting situation because you would have to actually vote for an evil person and do an evil act. So I don't think it follows to match them.

See, what we are arguing about is doing something that normally would be evil by definition. Moving your foot out is not normally evil. So I don't think it matches.

I do htink you should look at * and think about what you mean too. I'm getting confused!


[quote]As far as I see it, (presuming C is currently in effect) to do B is not to do a single evil action, but rather to ommit the full extent of the good. label the evil action done by B if C is already there. If A was already there, then doing B would be doing something evil. But if C is already there, B is something good. [/quote]

I think we need to clear the last stuff up. Maybe this relates to the last stuff but I don't feel like thinking about it.

What I will say is that you are esentially saying that to get out of bad, and if we do the littlest amuont of bad that you can to do the job of getting out of bad, then it's really good. Or actually you want to say that it's not bad to begin with but inherently good... I'm arguing by definition that we are considering hte lesser of two (fill in the number) evils. And you must be arguing that it's not really lesser evil (that's just the way we phrase it wrongly) (and this must be what you're arguing even if you don't realize it) but that it's inherently good if we're getting out of bad.

Basically, normally bad, but not when doing the littlest of normally bad as a way to get out of bad that exists. I'm not sure about this argument. I'm trying to think of a way to explain without using analogies considering how much analogies scew things...

By this thinking, anytime an evil is occuring, then a normally evil act is okay and defined as good. It's hard to explain without analogies! (I think Jesus knew how to communicate to us stupid humans.. now we stupid humans need to realize the nature of analogies and apply them to his words too and try to figure out)

I can't really refute that I suppose the way you present it. Maybe I just can't think of a way to explain without an analogy. I feel that you are changing what is true to fit your purposes. Sorry to use an analogy but: I kill someone, I say it's not bad because by definition it is good. You can't argue with that. It seems that I'm being arbitrary. doesn't it? But then killing if it's not fulfilling a purpose is bad right? But I'm saying it's good..

But then you're not preventing or getting out of bad.. hmm..

Maybe I need some moral absolutes here.. (you're about to convert me lol) Actually I'll jsut think about my own moral absolutes... if I can.. hmm..

I'll get back to this later when I have a fresh mind. I'm sweepy! so tomarrow i'll do better. You may have this.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c