Akash elucidates that navigating moral dilemmas involves choosing between imperfect options. People often select the lesser of two evils amidst ambiguity, exclusively for Different Truths. 

In the moral landscapes of human decision-making, perhaps the most perplexing challenge arises not when the choice is between good and bad, but when the choice is between two shades of wrongdoing—what we commonly refer to as the lesser and greater evils. The ease with which we choose good over bad gives us the illusion that morality is simple, clear-cut, and binary. However, life seldom offers such clean distinctions. Often, the decisions we must make involve ambiguity, compromise, and an uncomfortable negotiation with our values. In such scenarios, choosing the lesser evil becomes both a philosophical and practical quandary.

The Nature of Moral Choices: In its simplest form, morality seeks to differentiate between right and wrong. Ethical theories, from deontology to utilitarianism, aim to guide this differentiation. When presented with a moral decision, we are inclined to assess the outcomes, the intentions, or the inherent righteousness of the actions involved. But what happens when all available options fall short of ideal goodness? What if every choice carries harm, and the only variation lies in the magnitude or intent of that harm?

This is the space where the concept of the lesser evil becomes functional. It suggests that when faced with two negative outcomes, the morally preferable action is the one that results in the least harm. However, this idea is not as straightforward as it seems. For instance, what metrics do we use to measure harm? Is psychological pain less severe than physical suffering? Does long-term collective good outweigh short-term individual distress?

Choosing Between Imperfect Options: Imagine a scenario where two political candidates are vying for office. Neither is ideal; both have flaws, past transgressions, criminal accounts and questionable policies. One, however, has a track record of certain progressive reforms, while the other has consistently regressed on human rights issues. Voting becomes not an endorsement of ideals, but a strategic choice—a preference for the candidate whose governance might be less damaging.

A Broader Truth: Real-life choices are often constrained. Ideal options may not be available. Individuals must then rely on ethical reasoning to discern which imperfect choice is relatively better. The act of choosing the lesser evil, then, becomes a burdened moral responsibility. It is a conscious engagement with compromise, acknowledging that inaction or idealism might lead to greater harm.

The Psychological Burden of Relativity: There is an emotional and psychological toll associated with choosing among evils. When we pick the lesser evil, we are still choosing evil in some form. This realisation triggers cognitive dissonance, a discomfort stemming from acting in a way that conflicts with our self-perception as moral beings. This internal conflict can blur moral clarity and generate profound guilt or confusion.

Moreover, there is a retrospective awareness that even the less harmful individual or option has, at some point, contributed to suffering. This memory haunts the moral landscape, creating a shadow over the present choice. It leads to questions like: Are we endorsing past wrongs by choosing this option? Are we legitimising a flawed system by participating in it?

The Problem of False Equivalence: Another complication in choosing between lesser and greater evils lies in the possibility of false equivalence. When we say both options are bad, we risk equating their wrongdoings without acknowledging the degrees and nuances involved. Not all evils are equal. A failure to distinguish between them can lead to apathy or disengagement, a refusal to act because the moral stakes appear equally damning.

This is dangerous, especially in socio-political contexts. By treating all flawed candidates, leaders, or systems as equally condemnable, we might ignore the tangible difference our choice could make. Inaction, framed as moral purity, can inadvertently facilitate greater harm.

The Utility of Comparative Goodness: To navigate this fuzzy terrain, we often resort to a comparative analysis of good done. If both choices are flawed, we may ask: which one has contributed more positively? This metric, while practical, is fraught with challenges. How do we quantify goodness? Can acts of kindness offset past harm? Does a charitable act absolve a history of exploitation?

Moreover, comparative goodness risks creating a hierarchy of morality that privileges outcome over intent or process. We may end up validating someone solely based on the positive impact they had, ignoring the unethical means employed to achieve that impact. This reductionist approach simplifies complex moral profiles into a single numerical or comparative value, stripping away context.

The Illusion of Moral Clarity: In moments of intense moral scrutiny, we seek clarity—a clear right and a definitive wrong. But moral life resists such clarity. Ethics is not a formula; it is a lived experience, dynamic and contextual. The belief that we can always identify the lesser evil and choose it with confidence is an illusion. Often, we are forced to decide with incomplete information, influenced by biases, emotions, and the pressure of circumstance.

Furthermore, our understanding of good and evil evolves and has consequences. A choice that once seemed relatively moral may later reveal its deeper flaws. What was once the lesser evil might, in hindsight, appear more harmful. This temporal shift adds another layer of complexity, reminding us that moral judgements are not fixed but are constantly reinterpreted.

Constructive Engagement with Moral Ambiguity: Rather than seeking perfect clarity, perhaps a more ethical approach lies in embracing ambiguity and remaining critically engaged with our choices. This means acknowledging the imperfection of our decisions, remaining open to revising our beliefs, and continuously evaluating the impact of our actions.

Such engagement also calls for humility. Moral absolutism can lead to self-righteousness and a dismissal of alternative perspectives. Recognising the provisional nature of our ethical judgements fosters empathy, dialogue, and a commitment to do better, even when the choices available are less than ideal.

The Role of Context and Intent: Context matters. An action that is wrong in one scenario might be necessary in another. Likewise, the intent behind a decision influences its moral weight. Choosing the lesser evil with the intent of preventing greater harm is morally distinct from choosing it out of convenience or apathy.

This does not absolve wrongdoing but situates it within a framework that considers intention, necessity, and consequence. Ethical maturity involves understanding that real-world decisions often require weighing these factors in tandem.

Conclusion: Navigating a World of Imperfect Choices

In the end, the dilemma of choosing the lesser evil reflects a deeper truth about human existence: we live in a world where perfection is rare, and compromise is often unavoidable. Moral life is not about maintaining purity in isolation but about engaging responsibly with the world’s imperfections. It is about striving to reduce harm, even when all choices carry some degree of moral cost.

Choosing is not always simple, nor should it be. Complexity demands reflection. The burden of moral responsibility, when acknowledged and examined, leads not to despair but to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of what it means to be human. In navigating this complexity, we do not abandon morality—we deepen it.

Picture design by Anumita Roy

Akash Paul

Akash Paul, a renowned criminologist, theologian, and demonologist, and the author of two globally acclaimed textbooks, pioneered post-crime analysis in criminology and comparative religious studies in theology. His expertise spans criminal profiling, sexual offenses, Christianity, and religious history, with notable contributions to each of these fields. An insightful critic of contemporary society, he also writes poetry, short stories, and novels, blending creativity with profound societal analysis.

See Full Bio