Artwork

محتوای ارائه شده توسط Yonason Goldson. تمام محتوای پادکست شامل قسمت‌ها، گرافیک‌ها و توضیحات پادکست مستقیماً توسط Yonason Goldson یا شریک پلتفرم پادکست آن‌ها آپلود و ارائه می‌شوند. اگر فکر می‌کنید شخصی بدون اجازه شما از اثر دارای حق نسخه‌برداری شما استفاده می‌کند، می‌توانید روندی که در اینجا شرح داده شده است را دنبال کنید.https://fa.player.fm/legal
Player FM - برنامه پادکست
با برنامه Player FM !

Grappling with the Gray #64: Is the lesser of two evils still evil?

42:08
 
اشتراک گذاری
 

Manage episode 378097254 series 3359707
محتوای ارائه شده توسط Yonason Goldson. تمام محتوای پادکست شامل قسمت‌ها، گرافیک‌ها و توضیحات پادکست مستقیماً توسط Yonason Goldson یا شریک پلتفرم پادکست آن‌ها آپلود و ارائه می‌شوند. اگر فکر می‌کنید شخصی بدون اجازه شما از اثر دارای حق نسخه‌برداری شما استفاده می‌کند، می‌توانید روندی که در اینجا شرح داده شده است را دنبال کنید.https://fa.player.fm/legal

Is the lesser of two evils still evil?
That's the topic the ethics panel takes up on this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray.
Here is our dilemma:
2024 is shaping up to be the third presidential election in a row where the majority of Americans oppose both candidates. A recent Economist/YouGov poll found 56% of voters don’t want former Donald Trump to run for re-election and 59% don’t want Joe Biden to, either. Yet odds are that’s exactly what we’re going to get.
Granted that there are no perfect candidates, and realistically we can’t expect to agree with any candidate on everything. But if I conclude that one candidate is unfit to serve, whether because of character or competence or both, is it ethical for me to vote for that candidate anyway solely because the opposing candidate is even worse?
One common refrain is that voting for a third party candidate is either a wasted vote or a vote for the opposition. But never in history has any vote with an electorate of more that 25,000 people been decided by one vote. Which means that my vote by itself will not make a difference in the outcome. If so, why should I not vote my conscience?
In his book Integrity, Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter writes: I look forward to the day when we as voters will say, “I agree with So-and-so on most of the issues, but I could never vote for somebody who would say this or do that in order to win.” Without discussing the merits or flaws of any specific candidate, why do so few Americans seem to accept Professor Carter’s ideal?
Meet this week’s panelists:
JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as an author and TEDx speaker.
Sarah Kalmeta, aka Sarah the Pivoter, is a speaker, author and relentless truthseeker. She is founder of Pivot Point International, a high performance consulting company.
S. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.

  continue reading

114 قسمت

Artwork
iconاشتراک گذاری
 
Manage episode 378097254 series 3359707
محتوای ارائه شده توسط Yonason Goldson. تمام محتوای پادکست شامل قسمت‌ها، گرافیک‌ها و توضیحات پادکست مستقیماً توسط Yonason Goldson یا شریک پلتفرم پادکست آن‌ها آپلود و ارائه می‌شوند. اگر فکر می‌کنید شخصی بدون اجازه شما از اثر دارای حق نسخه‌برداری شما استفاده می‌کند، می‌توانید روندی که در اینجا شرح داده شده است را دنبال کنید.https://fa.player.fm/legal

Is the lesser of two evils still evil?
That's the topic the ethics panel takes up on this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray.
Here is our dilemma:
2024 is shaping up to be the third presidential election in a row where the majority of Americans oppose both candidates. A recent Economist/YouGov poll found 56% of voters don’t want former Donald Trump to run for re-election and 59% don’t want Joe Biden to, either. Yet odds are that’s exactly what we’re going to get.
Granted that there are no perfect candidates, and realistically we can’t expect to agree with any candidate on everything. But if I conclude that one candidate is unfit to serve, whether because of character or competence or both, is it ethical for me to vote for that candidate anyway solely because the opposing candidate is even worse?
One common refrain is that voting for a third party candidate is either a wasted vote or a vote for the opposition. But never in history has any vote with an electorate of more that 25,000 people been decided by one vote. Which means that my vote by itself will not make a difference in the outcome. If so, why should I not vote my conscience?
In his book Integrity, Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter writes: I look forward to the day when we as voters will say, “I agree with So-and-so on most of the issues, but I could never vote for somebody who would say this or do that in order to win.” Without discussing the merits or flaws of any specific candidate, why do so few Americans seem to accept Professor Carter’s ideal?
Meet this week’s panelists:
JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as an author and TEDx speaker.
Sarah Kalmeta, aka Sarah the Pivoter, is a speaker, author and relentless truthseeker. She is founder of Pivot Point International, a high performance consulting company.
S. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.

  continue reading

114 قسمت

Tüm bölümler

×
 
Loading …

به Player FM خوش آمدید!

Player FM در سراسر وب را برای یافتن پادکست های با کیفیت اسکن می کند تا همین الان لذت ببرید. این بهترین برنامه ی پادکست است که در اندروید، آیفون و وب کار می کند. ثبت نام کنید تا اشتراک های شما در بین دستگاه های مختلف همگام سازی شود.

 

راهنمای مرجع سریع