Editing Lesser of two evils principle

{{Short description|Guiding principle for a moral dilemma}}  {{redirect2|Lesser evil|Lesser of Two Evils|the Futurama episode|The Lesser of Two Evils|other uses|The Lesser Evil (disambiguation)}}

The '''lesser of two evils principle''', also referred to as the '''lesser evil principle''' and '''lesser-evilism''', is the principle that when faced with selecting from two immoral options, the least immoral one should be chosen. The principle is most often invoked in reference to binary political choices under systems that make it impossible to express a [[Sincere favorite criterion|sincere preference for one's favorite]].

== Origin ==
The maxim existed already in Platonic philosophy.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Rol0ALf2AGoC&pg=PA22|title=Moral Dilemmas in Medieval Thought: From Gratian to Aquinas|isbn=9781139501439|last1=Dougherty|first1=M. V.|date=14 April 2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press }}</ref> In [[Nicomachean Ethics]], [[Aristotle]] writes: "For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good". The modern formulation was popularized by [[Thomas à Kempis]]' [[Christian devotional literature|devotional book]] ''[[The Imitation of Christ]]'' written in early 15th century.

In part IV of his ''[[Ethics (Spinoza book)|Ethics]]'', [[Spinoza]] states the following maxim:<ref>{{cite book|first=Benedict|last=de Spinoza|author-link=Benedict de Spinoza|title=Ethics|chapter=Of Human Bondage or of the Strength of the Affects|translator-first=W.H.|translator-last=White|orig-year=1677|year=2017|publisher=[[Penguin Classics]]|location=New York|asin=B00DO8NRDC|page=424}}</ref>
{{blockquote|Proposition 65: "According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, and of two evils, follow the less."}}

== In modern elections ==
{{more|Lesser-evil voting|Strategic voting#Lesser evil voting|Sincere favorite criterion}}

The concept of "lesser evil" voting (LEV) can be seen as a form of the [[minimax]] strategy ("minimize maximum loss") where voters, when faced with two or more candidates, choose the one they perceive as the most likely to do harm and vote for the one most likely to defeat him, or the "lesser evil." To do so, "voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites" rather as an opportunity to reduce harm or loss.<ref>[[Noam Chomsky]] and John Halle, "[https://newpol.org/eight-point-brief-lev-lesser-evil-voting/ An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)]," ''[https://newpol.org/about/ New Politics],'' June 15, 2016.</ref> 

[[Hannah Arendt]] argued that "Those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil". In contrast [[Seyla Benhabib]] argues that politics would not exist without the necessity to choose between a greater and a lesser evil.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Benhabib |first1=Seyla |title=Politics in Dark Times: Encounters with Hannah Arendt |date=25 October 2010 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-139-49105-1 |pages=367 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mV_PVH9GVVsC&dq=%22Those+who+choose+the+lesser+evil+forget+very+quickly+that+they+chose+evil%22&pg=PA367 |language=en}}</ref> When limited to the two most likely candidates,<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkdmdg78jgo Pope urges Catholics to pick 'lesser evil' between Trump and Harris]</ref> "lesser evil" is the most likely "greater good",<ref>[https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/pope-francis-kamala-harris-donald-trump-rcna171092 The pope said to vote for the 'lesser of two evils.']</ref> for the "common good", as [[Pope Francis]] has said.<ref>[https://wherepeteris.com/pope-francis-on-us-election-vote-for-the-lesser-evil/ Pope Francis on US Election: Vote for the Lesser Evil]</ref>

In 2012, ''[[Huffington Post]]'' columnist Sanford Jay Rosen stated that refusal to vote for the lesser of two evils became common practice for left-leaning voters in the [[United States]] due to their overwhelming disapproval of the United States government's support for the [[Vietnam War]].<ref name=hufevil>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanford-jay-rosen/obama-reelection_b_1913745.html|author=Stanford Jay Rosen|title= Don't Get Fooled Again: Why Liberals and Progressives Should Vote Enthusiastically for President Obama|publisher=Huffington Post|date=2012-09-25|access-date=2013-03-23}}</ref> Rosen stated: "Beginning with the [[1968 United States presidential election|1968 presidential election]], I often have heard from liberals that they could not vote for the lesser of two evils. Some said they would not vote; some said they would vote for a third-party candidate. That mantra delivered us to Richard Nixon in [[1972 United States presidential election|1972]] until Watergate did him in. And it delivered us to [[George W. Bush]] and [[Dick Cheney]] in [[2000 United States presidential election|2000]] until they were termed out in 2009".<ref name=hufevil/>

In the [[2016 United States presidential election]], both major candidates of the major parties — [[Hillary Clinton]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]) and [[Donald Trump]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]) — had disapproval ratings close to 60% by August 2016.<ref name=washpostdislike>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/31/a-record-number-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/|author=Aaron Blake|title=A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton|newspaper=Washington Post|date=2016-08-31|access-date=2016-08-31}}</ref> Green Party candidate [[Jill Stein]] invoked this idea in her campaign stating, "Don't vote for the lesser evil, fight for the greater good".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.gq.com/story/jill-stein-green-party-interview | title=Meet Jill Stein, the Other Anti-Establishment Progressive Running for President | date=26 May 2016 }}</ref> Green Party votes hurt Democratic chances in 2000 and 2016.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241583809|title=Did Ralph Nader Spoil Al Gore's Presidential Bid? A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election|accessdate=30 March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/20/democrats-shrug-off-potential-green-party-spoiler-in-2020-329170 | title=Jill Stein cost Hillary dearly in 2016. Democrats are still writing off her successor | website=[[Politico]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/1/13811344/jill-stein-clinton-trump-nader-spoiler | title=Green Party candidate Jill Stein got more votes than Trump's victory margin in 3 key states | date=December 2016 }}</ref> This sentiment was repeated for the next two election cycles, both of which were between Trump and Democratic candidates [[Joe Biden]] in 2020 and [[Kamala Harris]] in 2024.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/2020-poll-analysis/index.html | title= 2020 could be another 'lesser of two evils' election | website=[[CNN]] | date= 24 July 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=4 November 2024 |title=A slice of voters explain why they're wavering on Harris and Trump |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/slice-voters-explain-wavering-harris-trump-rcna178535 |access-date= |website=[[NBC News]]}}</ref> Accordingly, the lesser evil principle should be applied to two front-runners among many choices, after eliminating from consideration "minor party candidates (who) can be spoilers in elections by taking away enough votes from a major party candidate to influence the outcome without winning."<ref>"[https://open.lib.umn.edu/americangovernment/chapter/10-6-minor-parties/ 10.6 Minor Parties]," ''American Government and Politics in the Information Age,'' [[University of Minnesota]], 2011.</ref>

In his ''DarkHorse'' podcast, [[Bret Weinstein]] describes his ''[[Articles of Unity|Unity 2020]]'' proposal for the [[2020 United States presidential election|2020 presidential election]] as an option that, in case of failure, would not asymmetrically weaken voters' second-best choice on a single political side, thereby avoiding the ''lesser evil paradox''.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Weinstein |first1=Bret |title=Bret Weinstein and Matt Taibbi: Corruption and its Consequences |url=https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS80MjQwNzUucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC00NjE4MzY3 |access-date=30 July 2020 |date=18 July 2020 |quote="[You] can't honorably interfere in a normal election cycle because you're told that if you do, if you try to represent the people and get elected on that basis, that you will elect the party that is less in line with your values rather than more. So, you're gonna do more harm than good because of the lesser evil paradox. So Unity 2020 addresses that so that we don't have to face the lesser evil paradox and we can reach the public and say: look, we've got a plan for actually having your interest represented at the highest level of government"}}</ref>

In elections between only two candidates where one is mildly unpopular and the other immensely unpopular, opponents of both candidates frequently advocate a vote for the mildly unpopular candidate. For example, in the second round of the [[2002 French presidential election]] graffiti in Paris told people to "vote for the crook, not the fascist". The "crook" in those scribbled public messages was [[Jacques Chirac]] of [[Rally for the Republic]] and the "fascist" was [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]] of the [[National Front (France)|National Front]]. Chirac eventually won the second round having garnered 82% of the vote.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.economist.com/node/1109370 |title=Chirac's new challenge |publisher=The Economist |date=2002-05-06 |access-date=2011-04-15}}</ref>

== Mythology ==
[[Image:GillrayBritannia.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|[[James Gillray]], ''Britannia between Scylla and Charybdis'' (1793)]]
"[[Between Scylla and Charybdis]]" is an idiom derived from [[Homer]]'s ''[[Odyssey]]''. In the story, [[Odysseus]] chose to go near [[Scylla]] as the lesser of two evils. He lost six of his companions, but if he had gone near [[Charybdis]] all would be doomed. Because of such stories, having to navigate between the two hazards eventually entered idiomatic use. 

An equivalent English seafaring phrase is "Between a rock and a hard place".<ref>Definition from the ''Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English'' [http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/Scylla-and-Charybdis available online]</ref> The Latin line ''incidit in scyllam cupiens vitare charybdim'' ("he runs into Scylla, wishing to avoid Charybdis") had earlier become proverbial, with a meaning much the same as [[jumping from the frying pan into the fire]]. [[Erasmus]] recorded it as an ancient proverb in his ''[[Adagia]]'', although the earliest known instance is in the ''[[Alexandreis]]'', a 12th-century Latin [[epic poetry|epic poem]] by [[Walter of Châtillon]].<ref>Noted by [[Edward Charles Harington]] in [https://books.google.com/books?id=7mIEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10 ''Notes and Queries'' 5th Series, '''8''' (7 July 1877:14)].</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Trolley problem]]

== References ==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Political campaign techniques]]
[[Category:International relations]]
[[Category:Dilemmas]]
[[Category:Ethical principles]]
[[Category:Good and evil]]
{{Good and evil}}