What do you think about the concept of lesser evil? (i.e. when faced with selecting from two immoral options, the less immoral one should be chosen.)
IMO, developing conciousness of the society is far more important than choosing the lesser evil.
Also the bigger evil, is only evil in your view. And letting the course run, is one of the best ways for that big evil to show people why it is bigger evil.
Thats how it is in our grayscale world
Yes, always.
It's a farce.
There are never only two choices. It is impossible to actually construct a real world situation where in there are only two choices. Even in an elementary school, given a test with only on question on it and it only has two answers, you can eat the test, scribble on it, punch the computer screen, walk out, etc.
Even in prison with guards pointing guns at you and putting you in a position to do either A or B you have options.
However, the concept of lesser evil is a shallow abstraction of the real world experience of pragmatism. Amongst all of your options, what course of action leads to the most desirable outcomes?
This is a real thing. We do it all the time. People in positions of grave responsibility have to do it with consequences and constraints that are absolutely gutting. Let's say the war has already started, well, now you have to make decisions about how to avoid losing the most strategically important objectives, even if that means people dying. In fact, the strategies employed in war force decision makers into these sorts of choices as a matter of course - an opponent knows you don't want to make certain sacrifices and will therefore create pressures that trade off those sacrifices with strategic objectives. Sometimes it's not even that they believe you'll give up the strategic objectives but the delay you have when choosing will give them an advantage, or the emotional and psychological toll of being put in such situations repeatedly over a long campaign can create substantial advantages.
Lesser evil is rhetorical sophistry or mildly useful thought experiments when exploring the consequences of ethical frameworks in academia.
I could do it once. When the "lesser evil" decides their whole strategy is being the lesser evil and blackmail me with "if you don't vote us the big evil will come" then I grow tired and issue a big fuck you to the "lesser evil".
I think of it as the food I must eat.
I am to hunger and I am to eat, I am to end something's being in order for me to be.
Best I can do is reduce the damage I induce. Eat just enough and waste little. Regardless I did an evil and now that something is no more.
I must have reverence for the harm I induce. To apply this into politics, harm will always happen - best you can do is fixate on the interests that are dire and do your part to reduce the harm in other avenues. The world is so interconnected, that almost every action has a negative - we are often just oblivious for we can only see our part.
When it comes to politics, it's dangerous thinking that got us in this hellhole in the first place. It proved to anyone getting into politics that you can be a massive shit stain, but just be a slightly smaller shit stain than your opponent and people will support you to no end. Alternatively you can be the exact same level of shit stain as your opponent, but say things in a nicer way or just not at all and get the same results.
I personally have refused to accept this outcome since the only thing it leads us to is a slower death. I'd rather put my time and effort into supporting those that keep us alive even if most refuse to support that decision and call it idiotic.
Back in the day, ex-slave Frederick Douglas had to choose between supporting a Presidential candidate who was for immediate abolition of slavery or helping a wishy-washy liberal who wouldn't come out in favor of abolition. Douglas chose to support the liberal because Douglas thought the liberal had a better chance of winning the election. Douglas had to weight the odds and decided that it was better to have a President who might listen to the abolition cause than it was to be 'moral' and lose the election.
Perfect example since slavery wasn't banned until the slave states straight up declared war on the free states. You'll never get a wishy-washy candidate to oppose institutional violence. Only direct action will end injustice
That's not so much "lesser evil" as "achievable good".
Choosing the lesser evil is the cornerstone of our great democracies!
It’s highly context dependent.
In medicine, you face this question all the time. Will a surgery do more harm than good. Can I just leave that person suffering, or should I roll the dice with this surgery? It’s a proper dilemma to ponder. How about this medication, that improves the patient’s quality of life in one area, but causes some side effects that are less horrifying than the underlying condition. Sounds like a win, but is it really?
In various technical contexts, you often find yourself comparing two bad options and pick the one that is “less bad”. Neither of them are evil, good, great or even acceptable. They’re both bad, and you have to pick one so that the machine can work for a while longer until you get the real spare parts and fix it properly. For example, you may end up running a water pump at lower speed for the time being. It wears down the bearing, moves less water, consumes too much energy etc, but it’s still better than shutting the pump down for two weeks.
In various technical contexts
You probably do this all the time without thinking much about it. For example, updating mains-powered devices without UPS. There's a chance the power goes out and something gets screwed up.
Yeah. Roll the dice, hope for the best and all that. If power goes out, you could be looking at several days of troubleshooting, but it is unlikely to happen.
On the other hand, you could get that UPS, but that’s going to take time, and the server really needs those security patches today. Are you going to roll that dice instead and hope nobody tries to exploit a new vulnerability discovered this morning?
Either way, it’s pretty bad.
In medicine you chose the best option not the lesser evil
The way I see it, that’s just different wording for the same thing. More patient friendly, for sure.
If there really are only harmful options, for sure choose the least harm. But you have to make sure that you're not ignoring an option which involves no harm.
The problem really is when people assume there's only two choices. If you dont like the choices, be creative and come up with something else.
Its usually used by more evil evildoers trying to paint themselves as less evil than their (real or made up) opposition, while advocating for evil. I think its a desparation move by villains who got found out.
Or arrogance and hubris of villains in politics, painting themselves as the lesser evil while aligned with their opposition against the voters they hsve contempt for.
I think it's usually used to create a false dichotomy so that stockholm syndrome victims can feel good about supporting their abusers.
I use it as an excuse to view the average idiot for what they are. A slow loss is still a loss, but stupid people have convinced themselves that it's a win. I'm glad I'm not like them.
There is always the option to not pick.
Choosing not to act is still making a choice and may still result in a negative outcome. It's the classic trolley problem. While you may not cause harm through an active choice, your inaction can still lead directly to a negative outcome.
The concept of the "lesser evil" operates as a manipulative technique, much like the neoliberal slogan "there is no alternative" (TINA). In both cases, the spectrum of alternatives is artificially narrowed to create the illusion of fewer choices than actually exist. For example, while the United States has roughly fifteen multi-state political parties, the lesser evil strategy deliberately implies there are only two.
No, the First-Past-The-Post system + media polarisation makes it a two party system. If you had proportional election you would have more parties, because the rest votes don't dissappear. The US election system is from the 1800s and outdated.
If you had proportional election you would have more parties, because the rest votes don't dissappear.
The US election system is from the 1800s and outdated.
So, would the better option not be to fight for a better system or infiltrate one of the two parties and change it from within?
I think the biggest problem I have with the way the US has been working is that we just vote for the lesser evil and call it a day, thinking we've done our part. We've done all we can do. It makes things simple. It makes us feel good.
The real solution is a long, hard fight for change that will actually solve some of our problems. It involves convincing others, fierce public debate, and may result in violence. You will not be alone, but there will also be countless others who may not agree with your solution and will fight you every step of the way. Your opposition may be inspired by a genuine passion for a different solution. They may have an irrational fear of change. Some may simply benefit from the status quo and prefer to protect what they have than solve any problems for the rest of society. It's so complicated and it's just so much easier to offload that work to politicians.
Unfortunately, the most powerful among us know this and work as hard as possible to convince the politicians that they know better... or they just buy them out.
You are intentionally shutting out reality and choosing to believe that third party candidates are viable but they absolutely are not
You are intentionally shutting out the meaning of my comment.
Depends on the context, but almost always a strawman imo.
Evil is simpler and easier to pull off than good (because you don’t have to value everyone in your equation), so “reasonable” compromises with evil compounded enough times leads to some pretty evil outcomes.
False dichotomy.
Also, read Witcher. It have like 9 books about it.
And watch Master & Commander while you're at it.
Yes, of course. That always assumes a lack of good choice (i.e. no choice also being a bad option).
It's particularly sensitive to false dichotomies, and used to justify immoral behavior.
It's far more effective to argue from the veil of ignorance.
I think it's like the trolley problem: a trolley (like a train) is barreling down the tracks to a fork in the tracks. You have a lever that will divert the train. Tied to the tracks dead ahead are five innocent people who will all certainly die if you don't throw the lever. However, one innocent person is tied to the tracks that you would divert the trolley to. Assume the trolley has no passengers and all five (or the one) will certainly be killed by the trolley.
The dilemma here is that by doing nothing, you could say you have nothing to do with the five people dying. You didn't put them there. You can blame the person who did put them there, but by doing nothing, you can say you have no blood on your hands. Or you can pull the lever, but then the blood of the one person is absolutely on your hands, but you can say you saved the other five.
Diverting the trolley is the lesser of two evils. But is it the right call? Depends on the situation.
And of course, there's also the unsaid option of diverting it and liberating the one in time, then the rest.
But, that is more difficult to pull off. Though better. I think if both the greater and the lesser evil support a greatly harmful outcome, then the only winning option is to support neither and fight for an option that's better.
With FPTP in the USA, the winning option would have been that everyone who normally voted Dem, voted for Green or the Democratic Socialist Party. But again, harder to pull off since you gotta convince so many people.
Five people call out to you to save their lives with the simple pull of a lever and you shout back to them “No, I am too principled. Perhaps if I had the abilities of Superman I could save you all with this lever and then also save that person with my hands but I recognize my limitations and will therefore choose the outcome where more people will die rather than fewer.”
They’re all so proud of you for those next five seconds.
It's rarely true.
You can aim to do something good, with a risk of something bad happening (e.g. as another poster said, rolling the dice on surgery to alleviate suffering at the risk of the patient dying)
...or you can do evil.
The "lesser of two evils" is just used as justification for something that can't be morally justified otherwise.
Obviously true? In real life I’ve found it’s often worth doing a bit of thinking / effort to find a third option though. Not always possible though - like when voting - though I don’t think picking the least worst (imho) option when it comes to political representation is immoral
It's a good concept but I'm more fond of the concept of sound. It comes down to personal preference.
There is no such thing as good or evil. There's only the things that make us feel good and things that do not. For some people, the things that make them feel good are also things that make others feel good; but there's a lot of people who only feel good by causing others to feel bad.
The only thing that matters is balancing what makes you feel better with the things that make the people you rely on feel better.
A friend of mine puts it this way: "I don't vote for who's turn it is to lead the KKK either."