That’s an odd response to what I wrote…what I said is that the two choices are becoming more and more evil, not that they are evil in the first place. Which is not how that phrase has typically been used (to justify selecting the lesser of the two evils).
Which, side note, may make sense in the context of, there are actually only two choices. But what we do is collectively lock ourselves into those two choices and then choose between them, when there are not only other parties and independent candidates we could support, but entirely separate political systems we could move to.
That’s an odd response to what I wrote…what I said is that the two choices are becoming more and more evil, not that they are evil in the first place. Which is not how that phrase has typically been used (to justify selecting the lesser of the two evils).
Which, side note, may make sense in the context of, there are actually only two choices. But what we do is collectively lock ourselves into those two choices and then choose between them, when there are not only other parties and independent candidates we could support, but entirely separate political systems we could move to.
The entire point is selecting the lesser of two evils.
If you choose to eat strawberry ice cream instead of dog poop, that’s not selecting the lesser of two evils.
If you choose to eat bugs instead of dog poop, that’s where you’d refer to it as the lesser of two evils.
Having an objectively good option and an objectively terrible one isn’t choosing the lesser of two evils.
Having a terrible one and a slightly less terrible one is.
You are correct that we shouldn’t need to be choosing between the lesser of two evils, but that phrase only really applies when both options suck.