[lbo-talk] lesser evilism

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Tue Jan 6 07:21:22 PST 2004


[Sent around by David McReynolds.]

The question of "lesser evilism" has bothered me all my life because it is an inaccurate way of posing the issue. We ALWAYS, EVERY DAY, are choosing a lesser evil or - to put this in reverse - we are choosing a greater good.

There is never any perfect decision offered to us. Never. We are finite creatures trapped in a real world, of real choices, not a single one of which is perfect. (Except for that one brief and wonderful moment when we convince ourselves that we have finally met the one perfect mate for life).

Pacifists who rejected the lesser evil in WW II and refused to fight against Hitler - and this is the position I'd have taken if I'd been old enough (yet, of course, in that "real world of that time", as a young grade school student, I was then eager to join the Marines and thought of waging guerilla war against the Japanese if they marched through our Los Angeles streets). Those who fought in that war know it was a "lesser evil" and not a perfect good. There was no good choice. Watch the "Fog of War", the fascinating documentary on MacNamara.

All we can hope for is to make "the best possible decision of which we are capable at any given time and place". This is not some kind of "relative morality", it is just plain truth. If, to save your wife and child from someone you mistakenly think is a rapist/murderer because you are blind drunk and can't see straight, you shoot and kill your best friend who was only trying to play a joke on you, that is certainly a profound tragedy, and might lead you to re-think having guns in the house - but it was the "best possible decision of which you were capable at that time and place".

If you spent most of your life avoiding fats in order to keep your weight down, and then found out the Atkins diet worked, it only means you made the "right choice" with the information available. As the information changed, so did you actions.

Sam, none of the above is meant in any way to say that we should (a) support the Socialist Party ticket (b) support a Green campaign (c) support Dean (d) support any Democrat who runs against Bush (e) boycott the election.

The only thing I'm saying is that whether you choose a, b, c, d, or e, none of those choices will be perfect.

It is only much later that we are wise. We are never really wise "in the moment". We know, now, that the Socialists and Communists should have worked together to defeat Hitler. But at that time and place such collaboration seemed impossible for either group.

This is one reason why, even as we argue with passion, we should also argue with a little humility.

Fraternally, David



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list