u/WiseMarshall

I’m not the least bit concerned if Iran develops a nuclear program, gets a reactor, or even a nuclear weapon. As an American, I don’t feel my safety is at risk if they do.

For starters, I don’t believe Iran can launch a missile from there to America. And even if they could, they’d destroy one or two cities at most. Meanwhile, America’s nuclear arsenal could wipe their entire country off the face of the earth.

So I’m not really concerned about them getting a weapon. Despite how crazy people like to make them out to be, I believe they’re rational enough to know that launching a nuclear weapon would mean destroying themselves.

Now, I know the concern isn’t necessarily about them harming America — it’s about them harming our allies in the Middle East. Again, I’m not really concerned about that.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the worst that can happen is that our allies lose the option to indiscriminately wipe out Iran’s cities or infrastructure. If Israel wants to bomb Iran or destroy them — they’ll do so at their own risk. If they try to turn Iran into Gaza, Iran could just nuke Israel. Honestly, that’s kind of fair play if the alternative is turning Iran into Gaza.

I’m under no illusion about how good or cruel Iran’s government is. At this point, the whole Middle East is a wash for me. That region has been hemorrhaging blood on all sides for so many years i see it as more a feature of the region.

I’m struggling to understand what we, as Americans, get out of the current deal. I want peace over there as much as anyone. I want them to stop fighting. And if Iran getting a nuclear weapon helps toward that peace — even if just for deterrence — then I’m kind of okay with that.

What threat does Iran's nuclear program pose to America? I know they have crazy religious extremists running their government but please name 1 country in the middle east where that isnt the case.

Please change my view and convince me to give a rip about whether Iran has a nuclear program or not.

The Classic Lesser-of-Two-Evils Problem (Abstract Version)

The classic moral problem of choosing the lesser of two evils is always very challenging for the individual.

Imagine you have two sides in a conflict:

· Side A wants to kill everyone on Side B. Side A justifies this through religious reasons.

· Side B wants to kill everyone on Side A. Side B justifies this through nationalistic reasons.

Both sides are intent on doing this and will carry out their killings with or without your participation. Each side has its own intrinsic beliefs and moral reasoning for why the other side should die and why they themselves should live.

The end result, regardless of what you do, is that people on both sides die. There will be suffering on both ends.

The Utilitarian's Possible Solutions

Given this, a utilitarian might consider rejecting both premises entirely — rejecting both Side A and Side B — and then either:

1. Choose neither side (refuse to participate at all), or

2. Kill both sides (actively eliminate both groups).

In either case, the utilitarian rejects the framing that one must choose between the two claimed "lesser evils."

Here’s your continued thought, transcribed and made coherent:

And in fact, the proper utilitarian approach to this would be to just kill both Side A and Side B.

If both sides are intent on killing the other, each armed with their own moral justifications — religious for Side A, nationalistic for Side B — then from a utilitarian standpoint, you cannot justify siding with either.

Why? Because both outcomes lead to the same result: total death on both sides. The only difference is which side’s moral narrative wins. But utilitarianism doesn't care about narratives. It cares about suffering.

If both sides will kill each other anyway — with or without you — then the net suffering is already fixed. However, if you can kill both sides quickly and dispassionately, without the prolonged cruelty, torture, or ideological zeal that each side would inflict, then you might actually reduce total suffering compared to letting them destroy each other slowly and brutally.

In that case, rejecting both premises and killing both sides becomes the actual lesser evil — even though neither side would ever admit it.

You can't justify choosing one side's moral reasoning over the other's, because both lead to the same bloody end. The only honest utilitarian move is to look at the outcome, not the justification, and act to minimize harm — even if that means standing outside both camps and pulling the trigger yourself.

Im an extremely amateur philosopher but does this argument hold any weight from purely philosophical stance?