2007-03-20 11:37:21 · 5 answers · asked by ~Sid~ 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Yes, it is choosing evil. And therefore one must always ask, is there a third non-evil alternative? And then ask, what can one do to make it happen.
2007-03-20 12:28:47 · answer #1 · answered by mcd 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In having only these 2 choicesyou would naturly choose the lesser of the evils. That is a one time choice. If one knows that a choice similar to this will occur again, I would try to throwin , or work to add on , another choice. For instance,Two people running for office; both idiots, (evil). For this one election you may have to choose one, for a certain period of time. For the next election , get a few people together and find a prospective candidate with a few more brains.Make sure he/she is acceptable and viable for the job and help them to understand the job and all it entails. You have to have at least one choice candidate for every 'evil' candidate running
2007-03-20 18:56:46 · answer #2 · answered by reinformer 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree with you Sid. I fear that the next presidential election is going to be JUST THAT.....choosing the lesser of two evils!
2007-03-20 18:42:49 · answer #3 · answered by guatemama 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a person has to make a choice, and are forced to make a choice then if you pick the less harmfull one that is not evil.
2007-03-20 18:41:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't make a choice, then you can't choose evil.
PS if it's a very major choice, then choose the one which effects the least people.
2007-03-20 18:40:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋