Too often this option is presented by people who are deliberately manipulating you and causing you to think that you only have the two choices which each benefit them and neither you. Always consider who is offering this choice and why. The true lesser evil here is whatever you have to do to get out of the situation where this choice is being presented to you.
Yeah “lesser evilism” always supposes the choice is being made in a vacuum where there’s only 2 options and nothing can be done about it later, there will never be another choice.
Obviously if you were presented with two options and that was it. You would always pick the lesser evil.
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.
Depends on your meta-ethical framework. If you’re a consequentialist, then you should always choose the option that leads to less evil being done. Same if you’re a utilitarian.
If you hold to a Kantian value-based framework, like the action itself holds the primary moral goodness or evil in its own nature, then choose the action that itself is less evil.
There are many other frameworks. It also depends on what you think happens in the case of something like voting. Some people see participation in any sense as a sort of tacit agreement or endorsement of the system as a whole. So by casting any vote, even one of protest, you are legitimizing the system as a whole.
Others see voting as a mere means to an end, and thus, is justified if the outcome is better than not voting would be. Some see it as purely neutral, like a tool that can be used for good or bad.
Still, others see it as an inherently good thing, and view abstaining from the act of voting as a moral wrong, because it is a willing act of self-sabotage of the moral interests of the greater good, or sometimes as a violation of the social contract.
There are many other positions and considerations. Basically…it’s complicated.
Some people see participation in any sense as a sort of tacit agreement or endorsement of the system as a whole. So by casting any vote, even one of protest, you are legitimizing the system as a whole.
This assumes that there we are always afforded the option to choose whether or not to participate. If you are a bus driver and your full bus is careening toward a cliff, and you have the opportunity to swerve into a procession of nuns crossing the street (toward the cliff? What kind of street is this?), not choosing is still a choice. You can’t say, “well, I’ll just sit this one out. I can comfort my conscience with the knowledge that I’m not making a choice.” The people on your bus are still going to die, and it will be your fault. Now, if you swerved, the nuns would die, and that would be your fault, too.
A person who comes of age in a country with suffrage is a part of that system; they are not afforded the luxury of not casting a vote guilt-free, even if they tend more Kantian, because they were placed in the driver’s seat of that bus on the day they became an adult. In fairness, they share that seat with hundreds of millions of others, but they still face a choice between two bad options. No matter which they choose, even if they choose neither, bad things will happen.
I guess what I’m saying is, when the stakes are high enough and stacked up against you enough, you have to become at least a little bit of a consequentialist.
Depends how evil the lesser evil is. There is a point where even the less bad choice is so bad I refuse to choose at all, even if it means a worse outcome overall.
In politics for example I might vote for a party close to the centre, despite being far left myself, if it is the only tactically sound choice to prevent a fascist from being elected, but I wouldn’t vote for a fascist to prevent an even worse fascist.
But why? If you had the choice of getting stabbed with a pin or stabbed with a knife why would you ever abstain or not choose the pin? It just doesn’t make sense.
Your example doesn’t fit since it doesn’t involve doing something myself (as opposed to something happening to me) and there is no morality involved the choices.
The reason I wouldn’t do something evil to try to prevent something even more evil, is because I don’t believe in doing evil things, even with good intentions. Sometimes I think it’s better to just let the trolley do its thing, rather than getting involved, if there are no good choices.
Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.
One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.
It’s very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.
The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.
Yes. But what I’m trying to say is that whether you are an active participant in the outcome matters too, not just the outcome itself.
Inaction that causes a harm is an action. Say for example you’re a muslim that doesn’t vote for a female candidate because you feel she doesn’t do enough to help your people. If the other candidate actively allows great harm to your people, you failing to vote for the female candidate is helping empower the harm on your people.
I just hope we never see this example in real life.
That’s a terrible example. I was talking about having a choice between two evils and not an evil and a woman.
That a disingenuous reply at best, the choice is clearly “person doesn’t do enough to help your people” vs “person who actively allows great harm to your people”.
The example could probably have done with being gender neutral, but even so.
I’m not sure why you zeroed in on the female part and not the “doesn’t do enough to help your people” part.
I don’t disagree in principle.
Lets take your scenario of not voting for fascist-lite as a means to fight against Full-Fat fascist.
In the current American system ( the greatest and most functional system /s), not voting effectively gives the vote to the eventual victor (that’s reductive but you know what I mean)
Assuming the BigFash win, the choice of inaction would be more impactful than the action of voting for DietFash.
On a relative scale and depending on how you feel about fascism I suppose.
So yes the participation and outcome matter but the effect isn’t always equal.
Inactively participating in the rise of the GrandMasterFash would be the cost of feeling good about not actively voting for the LesserFash.
Ultimately it’s shit choices all around, but that’s the point of the lesser of two evils, right?
I mean I understand the cause and effect, but that’s not what the question was about. It was about morality. And I’ve explained how I feel about that.
What if fascist A plans to kill innocent group X and fascist B plans to kill innocent group Y, but group X is more people? Should I vote for fascist B then? How would you explain that to group Y, that is now being killed because of your choice, but would have been fine otherwise? Do you think they will be okay with your numbers argument?
That’s an extreme example, but I never said I would allow a fascist to win, because I disliked the other candidate’s policy on public transit, just that there is a line somewhere that I won’t cross, even if it means a somehow “less bad” outcome.
As i said, i don’t disagree in principle.
All i was saying in that response was that inaction should also be factored in to any consideration of morality.
Not choosing is also a choice. It may or may not be the right or wrong choice.
Its a large component of my morality. Being basically a subcomponent of ethic of least harm. I mean armchair idealized morality is great but this life don’t always give you a good option.
A friend of mine puts it this way: “I don’t vote for who’s turn it is to lead the KKK either.”
The day the KKK has control over your friend’s day-to-day existence, that will be a relevant policy.
I mean, couldn’t we all just join the KKK and vote in a more moderate grand dragon?
It’s a great way to lose an election.
It’s a manipulative fallacy. Humanity has the total ability to control its destiny within what’s physically possible. People presenting two options and demanding a choice of one discount every possibly out of an infinite set of possibilities except those two.
See: horse image
Thats how it is in our grayscale world
There are always more choices.
I mean, if you truly have no other choice, what else can you do? Can it even be considered evil at that point or just “still painful”? If I have to chop off my/someone’s gangrenous leg to ensure survival, is that evil or just, you know, not ideal? It’s important not to get too lost in semantics…
i just don’t vote
won’t catch ME endorsing evilIf inaction leads to harm, is not doing anything a harmful act?
The whole notion that voting is the only action one can take to participate politically is absurd. You can join a union, educate people around you, organize strikes, do mutual aid, and a myriad other things that don’t involve voting for a party that’s simply less heinous than the alternative.
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.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos
