The notion that Biden represents a lesser evil compared to the chaotic reign of Trump is a common argument. However, we must not forget that there exists a moral threshold below which neither choice is acceptable. To suggest that enabling a literal genocide can be considered a lesser evil is a morally bankrupt stance.

Saying that voting for Biden is a moral obligation to prevent the return of Trump perpetuates a dangerous fallacy. It implies that the democratic party is immune from scrutiny and accountability, no matter the atrocities they commit. This line of thinking allows for a never-ending cycle of justification, as long as there’s somebody considered worse, the democrats are granted a blank check. This is nothing more than a form of gaslighting, manipulating the public into believing that their only choice is between two evils, rather than demanding a better standard of leadership and true representation.

  • trebuchet@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    Could you or anyone convert the scenario then into a trolley problem that does fit in your view?

    • cfgaussian
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      No. The trolley problem is an oversimplification that can never accurately reflect reality.

    • knfrmity
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes. There are ninety nine people on one side of the fork in the tracks, and one hundred on the other. The track loops around after the people to the other side of the fork, so no matter which way the lever is set, one hundred ninety nine people will be crushed. Or you can pull them off the tracks and destroy the trolley.