No. You made the best possible choice when you made it. That's what makes you blameless. If when you made the choice there was strong reason to believe such shift would happen, then your culpability would be less clear.
Ah ok, so next election though you should definitely vote for the party that was previously unthinkable to vote for, but is now the lesser of two evils and thus the "blameless" choice. So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse and no one is ever to blame. Party A is lesser of two evils before the election but then does worse, then party B is lesser but after elected does worse, and so on and so on. Additionally, there is no way to escape this dasterdly plan because as you stated before voting for a third party is off the table because it is the absolute worst option. Yeah, I guess I see how we got to the state we're in with ideas like these.
> So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse
Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this.
> and no one is ever to blame.
No. Those who voted for the lesser evil are blameless for the actions they didn't support, until the next election when a new choice is made based on the info at that time. The other voters are to blame.
It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless.
> Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this.
> It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless.
Ah, but by your own admission, the best possible choice is actually to start a revolution, not to vote for a party that is also evil. So why doesn't your unique take on morality instead assign blamelessness solely to those actively trying to start a revolution, instead of conveniently assigning blamelessness to those that vote for the lesser of two evils but perpetuate a system you admit perpetually ratchets up in evilness? Is it because its easier to tick off something on a piece of paper and tell yourself you're doing your part rather than devoting your life to actually making things better?
Seems to me that if you really want to have this black and white view where only, and I quote, those that make "the best possible righteous choice" can be blameless, then you unfortunately fall into that ... other bucket :/
You can support an end to the 2-party oligopoly and vote for the lesser evil. Doing both does greater good.
I don't support revolution, because it's not the best viable way to improve things, let alone very viable at this point. A much better way is for the good people to ostracize (as much as possible) the bad people. Imagine if Bush's daughters had disavowed love for him, over his needless violence. It may well have had an effect, and if not then at least been a consequence to him, serving as a warning to others.
Nah, you're just being lazy. I could have said the same thing during the colonies: "revolution isn't viable right now, we'd being going up against the most powerful military in history. Its a way better strategy to shun people that support the British, yeah, that'll work!"
At some point back then it would've been clear it was viable. We're obviously not anywhere near that point yet, and there are likely other better ways. We don't yet have full dictatorship, which makes the difference. For example, it would likely take less energy to gain vote ranking (or other way to make third parties viable) by protesting and striking than by revolution. If the protesters and strikers are mowed down by bullets or tanks, then you need revolution.
Party activists are more influential in the primaries. The black-and-white anti-third-party logic applies much less in those elections. The best possible choice is clearly to pick a party and get involved in its internal politics, and not wait until the general election to do anything.
Revolution from within! (Oh, wait, that's what happened with the Republican party starting in the 1980s.)
But that that's not as easy as ticking off a piece of paper and assigning blamelessness.
This is so ridiculous. It allows half the country to feel blameless by believing they're voting for the "lesser evil". You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option.
Additionally, the threat of one of the major parties losing votes to a third party has been shown to influence the politics of the major party, so even if the third-party candidate doesn't win, it still may have a positive effect down the road. People don't seem to think very far down the road, unfortunately.
> You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option.
There's no contradiction. You made the best viable choice. You can't be made "bad" by doing that.
That benefit of voting for a non-viable third party is outweighed by the advantage of voting for a lesser evil that can viably win. If hypothetically you were the voter that could tip the election to Gore in 2000, your best choice is to vote for him, not Nader, even if voting for Nader has some benefit. Voting for Nader could be reasonable only if Gore had no realistic chance of winning your state.
If hypothetically you could have secretly ruined votes for Bush for Palm Beach county - would you have?
Assuming your logic has merit, the benefit for you not committing voter fraud is surely outweighed by the benefit of not letting the Great Evil Bush get power, making voter fraud the best viable choice, no? Why would voter fraud be "bad"? Surely even the worst case of spending a couple of years in jail is worth the future of not having Bush in charge, right?
Are you ready to commit voter fraud for what you think is the greater good? Are you ready to torture for the greater good?
I support torture where it's clear it's the best viable choice to prevent greater violence. That may be an exceptionally rare case.
On your hypothetical I'll say only that I strongly support the The Congressional Oath of Office, namely this part:
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
That said, the best ways to effect change are still legal, like general strikes and boycotts.
That's the same oath all the military torturers took, right? And the same one that Cheney swore (or affirmed)? Who says he would order the torture again?
If you'll torture for that oath then you'll commit voter fraud for that oath, and commit murder and other felonies for that oath. You'll do anything so long as you can justify it with your consequentialist ethics.
Glad to know where you stand.
Or rather don't stand, since your ethics allow you to break that oath to prevent greater violence. And you get to decide which is greater. Which is why the death of thousands in 2001 justify the torture of innocent people now. Our employed and elected torturers got to decide which of those was the greater violence, without making that information public, as it was clear to them that that was the right choice with the information they had.
No, adhering to the oath excludes torture or other violence that isn't the best choice to prevent greater violence. I haven't yet seen a 9/11 related case where the details justified torture. Clearly our "employed and elected torturers" flouted their oaths.
My ethics are rock solid and will never break the oath.
Let me get this straight. Your oath prevents you from taking untaxed intoxicating liquors across state lines, no matter what violence you might be able to prevent by doing so, or the lives you might save (it's a violation of the 21st Amendment to take that moonshine across the state line to use an emergency anesthesia for a backwoods accident where the person needs an amputation), but you believe there may be times where your oath would let you torture someone, in violation of national laws and international treaties?
That's messed up.
And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right?
Oliver North was photogenically insistent that selling arms to Iran, in violation of US law, in order to fund the Contras against the democratically elected Sandinista government, was part of his oath. The enemy had become "liberal politicians, gutless judges and left-handed journalists" says one biography.
I'm pretty sure he believes his ethics are "rock solid" and oath unbroken. How am I to tell if it's broken?
My oath doesn't prevent me from taking untaxed intoxicating liquors across state lines, in whatever hypothetical case in which that would do the greater good, no matter how unlikely. My oath is to my interpretation of the Constitution, its spirit, and not its literal wording. Where my interpretation differs from the wording, the wording should change. For example, if the document allowed slavery, it should be changed to disallow slavery. If the document allows <insert evil here>, it should be changed to disallow <that evil>, or that allowance should be stricken.
> And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right?
Just as obvious as that, except for those lacking empathy, is that some things are wrong. You needn't prove they're wrong, you need only believe they are. Do you have to seek others' say-so to tell whether it's okay to kick a toddler in the face?
Oliver North flouted his oath, because his actions didn't serve the greater good. Simply consult your own conscience to tell whether ones' oath is broken.
