Evils.

How the hell are you supposed to choose between the lesser of two evils if both are evil?
How do you decide which one is the lesser evil?
If the consequences are the same, does it even matter?

I really hate making decisions.

Depends on what you're going to do really and depends on what you think of as evil/lesser evil. Or you could google it but Google lies sometimes.

''Lesser of two evils'' literally means one isn't -as- evil as the other, it's ''lesser'' compared to the other. Yes, they're both evil, but which is -less- evil, i.e. which one doesn't do as much harm.

If both have the same consequences then I don't think that particular scenario has a ''lesser'' evil. They're both as evil as each other and should be drenched with holy water.

It's about perspective.

Let's say you have to fire one guy and your two options are a guy who lies about important work related things and a guy who is stealing from work, which would you fire? You have to weigh their crimes and decide which is worse. The one that is less bad would be the lesser of two evils, though they're both pretty awful.

It's not always obvious nor is it ever an easy decision. Elections are typically about choosing the lesser of two evils because all politicians are truly evil.

I chose poorly.

It's about perspective.

Let's say you have to fire one guy and your two options are a guy who lies about important work related things and a guy who is stealing from work, which would you fire? You have to weigh their crimes and decide which is worse. The one that is less bad would be the lesser of two evils, though they're both pretty awful.

It's not always obvious nor is it ever an easy decision. Elections are typically about choosing the lesser of two evils because all politicians are truly evil.

Bad example, i'd fire both.

Brb looking into the classics for a really solid example.

Wikipedia pulls through again.

"Better the turban than the mitre", used by Orthodox Christians in the Balkans during the rise of the Ottoman Empire. Conquest by Western Roman Catholic powers would likely mean forcible conversion to the Catholic faith, while conquest by the Muslim Ottoman Empire would mean second-class citizenship but would at least allow Orthodox Christians to retain their current religion. In a similar manner, the Protestant Dutch resistance against Spanish rule in the 16th century used the slogan Liever Turks dan Paaps (better a Turk than a Papist).

At it's heart, it's a principle. In my opinion, a poor one. If all the choices left are evil, than an evil choice must've already been made. Sometimes the best solution to a current problem is to remedy a past mistake.

I refuse to make a decision I do not completely agree with. Its the reason I don't vote; I'm not picking someone I do not fully support, and I've never found a politician I agree with to any great extent; its not like most of the things they decide on are enforced anyway, so it doesn't really effect me either way. Lesser of two evils? More like, ignore it and let someone else, preferably a person with a bit more motivation, deal with it.

I refuse to make a decision I do not completely agree with. Its the reason I don't vote; I'm not picking someone I do not fully support, and I've never found a politician I agree with to any great extent; its not like most of the things they decide on are enforced anyway, so it doesn't really effect me either way. Lesser of two evils? More like, ignore it and let someone else, preferably a person with a bit more motivation, deal with it.

Not voting at all is just an extension of the lesser of two evils. Even cheaper than actually just choosing.

Not voting at all is just an extension of the lesser of two evils. Even cheaper than actually just choosing.

Call it whatever you want, but it's good enough for my noncommital lifestyle, heh.

Bottom line is you always pick the one you can live with. Not making a choice at all is the worst you can do in most situations, elections included.

I tend to pick the one I can't live without.

I tend to pick the one I can't live without.

You say that like they're not effectively the same thing.

If you can't live with it, you obviously die.
If you pick the one you can live with, you continue living.

In the event neither will kill you, you pick the most livable.

Not making a choice at all is the worst you can do in most situations, elections included.

Not entirely true. If you don't vote, you're not contributing to the betterment or worsening of the thing that's being chosen. As long as you don't complain about the results, not voting seems logical if neither option appeals to you.

I guess that all depends on your definition of living. Like you said, it's mostly based on perspective.

Not entirely true. If you don't vote, you're not contributing to the betterment or worsening of the thing that's being chosen.

That's not true. Not giving someone CPR isn't helping them or hurting them, directly, it's still neglecting them and allowing them to die.
"Its not my fault if I don't vote" is an excuse, pure and simple. If more people voted more people would have incentive to run in the first place. As it is the majority of voters do so because they've had their buttons pushed, not because they've tried to make an informed decision on the agenda of who they're voting for which means the candidates most likely to run are the ones who can and will push buttons and therefore get elected. The apathetic non-voters have the potential to completely change how elections play out but instead choose to create a self fulfilling prophecy of not mattering.

You have the right to disagree with what your politicians are doing whether you voted for them or not, and the right to seek action to address their behaviors if you disagree with them. You may as well also exercise your right to determine who ends up there rather than treating it like somebody else's mistake you have to live with.

Well I'm finally going to have to actually start doing research on political candidates now that I'm finally 18 and I'll be able to vote.

Sin is a boolean, all sins are quite literally equal because the act of sin, regardless of sin, carries the same cost in most theologies.

I disagree. Sin is not a boolean. It's much more ternary.

There are several levels of sin, but most theologies separate these into forgivable and unforgivable acts. Christian theology specifically states blasphemy as unforgivable (Luke 12:10, Matthew 12:31). Islam claims idolatry is unforgivable (4:116). Also, the medieval interpretation of hell espoused in Inferno makes references to multiple layers of hell depending on the sin committed. Even in extreme Islam, different sins have different punishments. If you're caught stealing, you lose your foot. If a woman is caught cheating, she's honor killed. In Catholicism during confession different sins are told to have different prayer requirements or acts of restoration. Back in the middle ages, different payments (indulgences) were paid depending on the severity of the sin.

In the Christian community, being gay also has different levels of sin depending on who you talk to. Conservatives view it as unforgivable, moderates view it as forgivable, and liberals view it as not a sin.

So no, I don't think sin is a boolean. It's a bit more gray than that.

So no, I don't think sin is a boolean. It's a bit more gray than that.

Sin is sin.
The degree of absolution required to cleanse does not make it gray. The degree of damnation is a constant, regardless.
To sin, in any degree, in any capacity, is to be damned until absolved. Under it's literal Abrahamic interpretation you are just as likely to be damned to hell for eternity for disrespecting your parents and dying unshriven as you are for raping and murdering an entire village. Also by that same interpretation a child molester of dozens who seeks forgiveness is guaranteed heaven while that same disrespectful youth is guaranteed hell if not properly shriven. This is why religions argue so much, even internally; The rules aren't logical or fair.

Sharia punishments are irrelevant to the point as they do not have any bearing on the state of the soul. Those are merely earthly punishments, not divine and the core of a theological debate is the divine consequences, not the mortal ones.

Sharia punishments are divine consequences as they are given by Allah (Quran - 47:4, 5:38). It is not a man-made or mortal consequence.

-------------

"All sins receive the same punishment of hell.
Therefore, all sins are equally sinful."

But all sins are not equally sinful as some sins are unforgivable while others are forgivable. Therefore, all sins are not equally sinful even though all sins receive the same punishment. Even modern day Catholicism agrees with a ternary interpretation with those only committing forgivable acts being sent to purgatory and those committing unforgivable acts being sent to hell without restitution.

Sharia punishments are divine consequences as they are given by Allah (Quran - 47:4, 5:38). It is not a man-made or mortal consequence.

The ones you cited involving physical punishments are man made, not given by Allah.

"All sins receive the same punishment of hell.
Therefore, all sins are equally sinful."

But all sins are not equally sinful as some sins are unforgivable while others are forgivable. Therefore, all sins are not equally sinful even though all sins receive the same punishment. Even modern day Catholicism agrees with a ternary interpretation with those only committing forgivable acts being sent to purgatory and those committing unforgivable acts being sent to hell without restitution.

Except that's not actually in either the old testament or the new testament, though the Quran and book of Mormon have their own distinct additions at least the Mormons agree with me below and I don't recall Islam differing too greatly considering it has to offer a path to forgiveness for the unending slew of things they've made sin or life would not be worth even trying (oh damn, got a spritz of urine on myself, going to hell unavoidably).

The only sin that is in fact unforgivable is the sin of rejecting God itself, because you can not be absolved of sin by someone you don't believe in. That's not true repenting, it's saying sorry to get out of trouble. The class of sins you're referring to are just Catholic interpretations of events that would be considered that particular sin, not individual sins themselves that actually carry different weights.

Good enough synopsis; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin


The key point there is the sin itself isn't forgivable, if someone truly changed their mind and came to god asking forgiveness for their disbelief it specifically is stated they'd be forgiven, they just can't be forgiven for disbelief while disbelieving, Until they get past that they have no road to salvation.

I've clearly spent waaaaaaaaaaaay too many hours discussing this with my friends in seminary.
Anywho, we can discuss this more elsewhere if you like since we've drifted off topic severely from generic evils.