You Are Responsible For The Consequences Of Your Refusal To Make A Choice
If you refuse to vote for the less-bad candidate, you are responsible if the worse candidate gets elected
By David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
I recently wrote a column about how, when confronted with two bad options, a substantial number of humans are emotionally incapable of choosing the less bad alternative and instead freeze up and do nothing.
No-Win Situations That Have No Ethical Component
I used examples of people refusing to choose between losing either $10 or $100 or refusing to choose between having a surgery tomorrow with a 25% chance of death versus not having the surgery and having a 100% chance of death a few months from now.
There was no morality element involved in those two examples.
No-Win Situations That Do Have An Ethical Component
The situation becomes more complicated when the no-win choices are both perceived to be morally wrong. In that case the number of people who refuse to make a choice increases because some people think that by choosing either of the bad options they become morally responsible for that bad outcome.
Would You Rather . . . ?
When I was a child we would sometimes play the game “Would you rather . . . ?” — “Would you rather spit on the bible or burn the American flag?”; “Would you rather break your mother’s leg or break your father’s arm?”
Of course, someone would often say, “I wouldn’t do either one,” but the rules of the game were that if you didn’t pick one or the other option then someone else would randomly make the choice for you so that one of the two morally wrong, no-win events would always occur whether you chose one of them or not.
This cut down the number of people who would refuse to make a choice, but it didn’t reduce it to zero. There were always kids who would still refuse to choose because they thought they would be morally responsible for whichever bad option they chose.
The refuseniks thought that if they made either choice then they would be responsible for the ensuing harm whereas if they did nothing and someone else made the choice for them, then that other person would be responsible for the harm inflicted and they would be morally off the hook.
When One Of The No-Win Choices Is Much Worse Than The Other
The game ratcheted up when one alternative was clearly far worse than the other:
“Would you rather break your mother’s leg or shoot your father dead?”
Logically, the guilt from choosing to break your mother’s leg should be far less than the guilt from choosing the “shoot your father dead” option.
This disproportionate level of the bad outcomes resulted in many “lesser of two evils” choices and materially decreased the number of people who refused to choose at all, but it still did not reduce that number to zero.
Self Delusion
Some people were so able to deceive themselves that doing nothing would relieve them of any moral responsibility for the harm ultimately inflicted that they concluded that they would have less guilt from
- (1) taking the 50–50 chance that the third party would shoot their father in the head than from
- (2) choosing to have the third party break their mother’s leg.
Doing Nothing Does Not Absolve You Of Responsibility
A minority of people think that they have no responsibility for the harm flowing from the occurrence of the worse option that comes to pass because of their refusal to choose at all.
In their minds, they would have more guilt from choosing the less bad outcome than they would feel by refusing to make any choice at all which refusal resulted in someone else picking the worse outcome for them.
Others might say, “Wait a minute. If you had chosen to have the bad guy break your mother’s leg then your father would definitely still be alive. Your father was killed only because you failed to choose the least-bad option, so your dad’s death is totally on you.”
When confronted with a no-win situation with one immoral choice being much worse than the other immoral choice, most people would, reluctantly, choose the less bad outcome, the lesser of two evils.
The problem is with the people who refuse to make any choice at all and therefore provide a path to victory for the greater of two evils.
Different Philosophical Points Of View
This is a “tree falling in the forest” type of dispute where the answer depends on how you define the concepts of blame and responsibility.
Much of it comes down to the individual’s tolerance for cognitive dissonance, their ability to simultaneously hold two conflicting beliefs:
- (1) My refusal to choose my mother being injured caused my father to be killed, and
- (2) Because I refused to choose either option, I am not responsible for my father being killed.
Practical Effects Of Refusing To Pick The Lesser Of Two Evils
In 2001 a substantial number of liberal and progressive Democrats were faced with a choice of voting either for George Bush or Al Gore. On ethical/philosophical grounds they refused to vote for either man and instead voted for Ralph Nader.
By refusing to pick either of the two disliked alternatives, those liberals and progressives put George Bush, the candidate who was least aligned with their goals and philosophy, in the White House for the next eight years.
Bush’s term was marked by tax cuts for the rich and the Gulf War, events that were an anathema to the liberals and progressives whose votes for Ralph Nader resulted in Bush’s election.
In 2016, liberal and progressive Democrats who disliked Hillary Clinton and refused to vote for her as the lesser of two evils put Donald Trump in the White House.
Trump? Biden? Not Vote At All?
So, for those of you who think Joe Biden is bad and Donald Trump is even worse, or think that Donald Trump is bad but Joe Biden is even worse, and decide that, on moral grounds, you are not going to vote for either one, and instead you’re going let other people choose which of those two men will become your next president, I understand that you are telling yourself that
- if I do not vote for the less-bad candidate I will have no responsibility if the worse candidate ends up being elected.
- The liberals and progressives who voted for Nader and failed to vote for Hillary Clinton have no responsibility for Bush and Trump being elected
Or, to put it differently,
- If I refuse to choose to have my mother’s leg broken and consequently the “bad guy” flips a coin and shoots my dad in the head, it’s not my fault. Don’t blame me.
Hey, you stood your moral ground and voted for Ralph Nader. Yea! Thank you for eight years of President George Bush.
You stood your moral ground and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. Yea! Thank you for giving us President Donald Trump.
You can lie to yourself all day long.
You’re still a fool.
— David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
