If given 2 immoral choices, is it morally permissible to pick the "lesser of 2 evils"?

Question

In other words, is it possible to be put into a situation where, no matter what you do, your next action will always be morally forbidden?

Answer 1

Sophie's choice...

Answer 2

no.

you can always not pick anything right?

Answer 3

"forbidden"? That wreaks of self-righteous indignation...Is anything really "forbidden"? Or moreso, ill-advised. Perhaps we can introduce the age old "moral dilemma" of warfare and consider killing someone for the sake of being "ordered" to do so, yet the military (all militia-men/women) are steeped in their own self-righteousness and are even trained to exemplify that toward their enemies.

So, on the battlefield it is perfectly ok to kill someone in the name of your country, but also ok to do so in the name of your God...and most of it happens on the victims own soil...so, you tell me.

Is it morally permissible that in this world we are not only justified but "entitled" to go over to someone else's home land and kill them because we disagree with THEIR moral intent and belief system because we feel OURS is a better moral imperative? So, again, I say "forbidden" is a vague word given this world of justifications and "exceptions" that we live in.

Further, we can use the rich as the example...is it morally right that we pay athletes and movie stars the amount of money they "earn", while yet, we still spoil them with endorsements and free merchandise, while we have so many people that have needs that go without in our country, let alone this world because we live in a system that uplifts their talents economically and yet, we continue to not only reward them financially, but also judiciously and continue to propagate their lifestyle through our belief of separation of economic classes. We, as a society, are hypocrites of the highest form, yet we fail to look into the eyes of our OWN moral dilemmas and the lifestyles we supplant under the heels of the "deserving"...

So, to answer your question, it is all relative as to whom you are and the placement of our society in which you reside. Even in our "equal" society, every class system as varying morals and ethics AND morays...which, doesn't sound so "equal" to me, but hey, I must abide by the "standards" of my class placement, I suppose...

peace,

Baldy

Answer 4

Nope. Even if death is the option if abstaining, it would be truth that all ways led to death. I would prefer death in rightness than death in immorality.

Answer 5

No, it is not.  What is wrong is wrong and is forbidden in all circumstances.  Those who want exceptions are always allied with evil.

Answer 6

...i won't complain...a few things i'd like to do...hey, im easy...

Answer 7

yes, the presidential election is a good example.

Answer 8

I like Penn's(of Penn and Teller fame) answer to this question:

"If you choose the lesser of two evils, your still choosing evil"

In that sense... No...

Esoterically, however, many so called 'Morally forbidden' choices are more of a choice of Yin over Yang.... being Assertive or Receptive in any one given point...

Though it would prove Universally-Morally-Wrong to kill your neighbor for no reason..... other issues like speeding 2 miles over the speed limit... become less life and death or 'Morally Wrong' then we might assume.

And more importantly it is better to do something for the right reason because it's right, then to not to pick it's alternative out of fear of punishment; eternal or temporal.

Answer 9

It is definitely possible, but I wouldn't say it is every likely. I would say it is morally permissible considering that there is no other option.