HeavenlyPossumSo if someone wanted to vote for “a society in which snipers are not deployed against student protests,” which candidate should they vote for?
This toot has made some people really angry at me. But no one has been able to provide an answer other than “no one.” So you’d think they’d be more angry about the lack of a candidate who can or would allow people to exercise their most basic rights rather than at me for pointing it out. But hey this is the internet so 🤷♂️
Joe ❌👑@HeavenlyPossum I think Noam Chomsky had the right answer. You vote for the lesser evil, because then you get less evil. But you don't stop fighting against evil.
“There's another word for lesser evilism,” Chomsky replies. “It's called rationality. Lesser evilism is not an illusion, it's a rational position. But you don't stop with lesser evilism. You begin with it, to prevent the worst, and then you go on to deal with the fundamental roots of what's wrong, even with the lesser evils.”
lertsenem@not2b @HeavenlyPossum That's a rational position. But you may also consider that, as Hannah Arendt put it:
The weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil.
@lertsenem @HeavenlyPossum Which is why activists need to prevent people from forgetting and need to keep fighting. Chomsky made the same point. Arendt was talking about those who choose the lesser evil but do nothing else.
@not2b @HeavenlyPossum Arendt was talking about what "choosing the lesser evil" does to people and what it can lead to. To quote her more fully:
If you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. […] Politically, the weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil.
↪️
Moreover, if we look at the techniques of totalitarian government, it is obvious that the argument of "the lesser evil"–far from being raised only from the outside by those who do not belong to the ruling elite–is one of the mechanisms built into the machinery of terror and criminality. Acceptance of lesser evils is consciously used in conditioning the government officials as well as the population at large to the acceptance of evil as such.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for absolutely never choosing the lesser evil, I'm merely noting that there can be a strong case for refusing to do so, and that the matter is not ethically as clear cut as you might expect.
◻️
@lertsenem @HeavenlyPossum There are some cases where I'd agree that refusing to choose either is most rational, yes, if the level of harm is similar on both sides.
@not2b @HeavenlyPossum Well if the level of harm is similar there's no "lesser evil" argument to be made and the all point is kinda moot.
@lertsenem @HeavenlyPossum I'd point out two things: one is that the people who recognize the "lesser evil" as evil need to make sure that no one forgets it, and that they keep fighting. The other is that her hypothetical opponents who attack "a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands" have a point. If inaction and purity votes allow an outright Nazi to take power because the opponent is engaged in lesser evil, then perhaps that's the last election and the chance to replace the lesser evil person with a positively good people in a future election evaporates, and perhaps the third-party voters or non-voters's hands aren't as clean as they think.
My brother compared the choice Americans face this fall to skin cancer vs. pancreatic cancer. The point is that while both are bad, one is almost always fatal while the other often can be recovered from. Biden is skin cancer. We need to fight him on Gaza. But one of them will be president.