Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9225897" data-attributes="member: 177">I mean, you are literally taking the last five words of a thirty word quote, ignoring the context of the others, and making a claim as to correctness. That's... not good analysis.  This is a quote that was translated from another language, from a cultural context 2000+ years old.  Hanging on the most simplistic literal (English) interpretation of only the last five words is not the way to glean its meaning.Aristotle is explicitly stating that the two options available are known to be evil, before your preference enters into it.  This assumes you broadly have your head screwed on straight with respect to good and evil - you are basically a moral being, can see the difference between good and evil, and are trying to figure out what to do when the only choices available are bad.  As a basically moral being, we have a handle on your preferences: your preferences are for the most moral outcome!  You actually care about your moral rightness*.  You aren't some manipulative sociopath trying to find an excuse for doing what you want to do by quibbling semantics. The quote is about comparing options, not really about absolute moral value.  The lesser evil is good in comparison to the greater evil.  If the greater evil is not your only other choice, the lesser one does not become good just because you like it.This quote covers issues like... Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  Spock would prefer to not enter a room flooded with radiation and stick his hands in a warp core.  That's bad.  But, everyone getting caught in the Genesis device explosion is clearly worse, so [spoilers!] he sacrifices himself - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one - evil to the one is acceptable if evil to the many is averted.Or, like the Enigma Code in WWII.  Allowing a town to be bombed is evil.  But allowing the war to go longer by alerting the enemy that their code was broken is more evil.  The Right Action then is to allow the town to be bombed.  It is not a good thing, but it is still the moral choice in that situation.* Aristotle reportedly did a lot of his speaking in town squares and on the steps of buildings.  So, you're standing on stone pavement without arch support in your sandals, under the hot Grecian sun, no Gatorade in sight, listening to this old guy blather on all afternoon about moral philosophy?  You either actually care about being morally upstanding, or have a weird thing for suffering heat stroke for the lulz.</blockquote>

Verification