"If you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. The weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil."~ Hannah Arendt, from her 1964 essay 'Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,' collected in the book Responsibility And Judgment
▼
Wednesday, 2 July 2025
The lesser of two evils ...
2 comments:
We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
But we do (ir)regularly moderate comments -- and we *will* delete any with insulting or abusive language. Or if they're just inane. It’s okay to disagree, but pretend you’re having a drink in the living room with the person you’re disagreeing with. This includes me.
PS: Have the honesty and courage to use your real name. That gives added weight to any opinion.
A better criterion for whether to support something or not, is does it move things in the right direction from where they currently are? That's neither the lesser of the two evils (how can an improvement on current conditions be an evil?), nor is it a demand for moral perfection as the price of support. With that approach you don't lose sight of your ideals, because it's only by reference to your ideals can you decide if it's moving in the right direction or not.
ReplyDelete@Mark: Indeed. In the right direction but with no *new* evil.
DeleteBut bear in mind Ms Arendt is talking *actual* evil here.