Society/Culture Is there such a thing as the lesser evil?

[Gethelred]

Aristotle, as found in Nicomachean Ethics, via Thomas a Kempis' The Imitation of Christ: "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." In a modern parlance, the 'lesser of two evils' is seen as a good thing; you are better off voting for the devil you know versus the devil you don't. You are better off letting the okay win instead of holding out for the better or the perfect.

Is it truly worthwhile to eschew what you truly desire for incremental gains, especially when knowing that those incremental gains can be overthrown, when the democracy created to enshrine the rights of the people can be overturned (and the Weimar Republic is hardly the sole exemplar here, just the best one) when the desires of those who are affected are ignored in favour of those whose opinions are least affected?

In short, does this hold true for you? Do you truly, deeply think that advocating for the lesser of two evils is a worthwhile approach? Or are you of a mind that such leads to stagnation and ideological paralysis or - worse - the slow eventual victory of those who will stop at nothing to win?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Aristotle, as found in Nicomachean Ethics, via Thomas a Kempis' The Imitation of Christ: "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." In a modern parlance, the 'lesser of two evils' is seen as a good thing; you are better off voting for the devil you know versus the devil you don't. You are better off letting the okay win instead of holding out for the better or the perfect.

Is it truly worthwhile to eschew what you truly desire for incremental gains, especially when knowing that those incremental gains can be overthrown, when the democracy created to enshrine the rights of the people can be overturned (and the Weimar Republic is hardly the sole exemplar here, just the best one) when the desires of those who are affected are ignored in favour of those whose opinions are least affected?

In short, does this hold true for you? Do you truly, deeply think that advocating for the lesser of two evils is a worthwhile approach? Or are you of a mind that such leads to stagnation and ideological paralysis or - worse - the slow eventual victory of those who will stop at nothing to win?

Me, I see the shortcomings of democracy through the possibility that human rights can be taken away by virtue of the popular vote.

To my mind, universal human rights are the Greater Good, which means a democracy which allows the cancellation of these rights must be by its own negative action villainous.

The rights of all must matter more than the freedom to conduct evil. Unfettered freedom must never be allowed to be used as a tool to attack our common humanity. A concrete and immovable Bill of Rights, one that no democracy or executive order can ever overturn without immediate and lethal retaliation, must stand as humanity's guarantee to itself that we all matter.

And that nobody is above or beyond the law.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That's the point. Who's the 'greater good' supporting? Who's the 'lesser evil' supporting?.
If we're using slavery, hatred, fear, discrimination to help grow our industry and win a war against a 'greater evil', is it something we should aim for, burden ourselves with or vote for?


Gravity is a constant that will exist throughout existence, regardless of our definitions. Ideals aren't.

We have ideas of rights, wants and needs in terms of what best suits our survival.
Good and evil is something we access to defend, improve or protect our collective.
It's a nuanced Trolley Problem.
But I think we need people to engage with and answer honestly the basics before we can push more.

View attachment 2468369

You make an action to kill an innocent person.
Or you do the same thing you normally do everyday of your life, and multiple people die due to your actions/inactions.


My honest answer is that I'm not strong enough to switch tracks.

If the group of 5 and the 1 lone person are all equally innocent (you could add so many riders and additionals though - what if the 5 were all Nazis? What if the loner was a paedophile?) then the Greater Good dictates that the 1 should die so 5 may live if those were the only two options.

I'd like to think I could have the moral conviction to switch but actually in the moment? I genuinely don't know if I'd freeze.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

If the group of 5 and the 1 lone person are all equally innocent (you could add so many riders and additionals though - what if the 5 were all Nazis? What if the loner was a paedophile?) then the Greater Good dictates that the 1 should die so 5 may live if those were the only two options.

I'd like to think I could have the moral conviction to switch but actually in the moment? I genuinely don't know if I'd freeze.

I have read that this scenario becomes even more challenging if we assume the 5 are older adults and the 1 person a child.

What would AI do? A self driving car has to make a decision of staying on course and killing 5 people or swerving but killing 1 person. Add a third scenario. The car can swerve right into a wall killing the owner of the car and the car itself.

 

[btdg]

I think the important thing to remember here is that context matters.

'The lesser evil' is rarely obvious, and often poorly understood. But beyond that, the types of choices it applies to are also rarely made with full information or with full information about the choice, consequences or actors.

In simple terms, the trolley problem is a nice thought experiment, but its purpose is to help us understand the different frameworks we use to make decisions. Consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics etc. And thus to reflect on how we make choices, so we are prepared to both make them, and to live with the consequences in the future. It's not supposed to be a model for real-world decision making - you aren't supposed to come away from that with a particular view on whether to pull the lever that then gets rigidly applied to all real-world scenarios.

Part of that reflective process is also about the ability to step outside the problem and try to see and consider it from broader angles.

To use one example that I think the OP was highlighting regarding political choices - the decision to vote Democrat as the 'lesser evil' over Republican. I don't think that choice is ever quite that simple.

Many people did precisely that in 2020 - they voted for Joe Biden as president - an uninspiring, old, bland candidate who was nonetheless the 'lesser of two evils' and who offered a reactionary retreat back to the past Obama era. And it worked - Trump was gone, politics returned to normal (ie: more of the same), and the USA entered a long, glorious period of happiness.

Oh, wait... it didn't. Biden alienated his own supporters, firstly by offering pretty much nothing in terms of a progressive agenda, then through support for Israel. Somehow the COVID response became a Biden/Democrat thing which pissed off and then radicalised others. Meanwhile Trump's supporters doubled down, welcomed the radicals into the tent, and had 4 years to plan for what came next.

We never know what we missed, but had people NOT chosen the lesser evil what we likely get was 4 more years of a weakened Trump and Republican party tearing itself apart completely over how to manage COVID, then a heavily weakened economy and inflation crisis. We don't get Trump 2.0 and his libertarian oligarch friends; instead we perhaps see an equivalent wave of frustration swing the Democrats way and we get a very different 2024 election result. Had people not voted Biden we're probably all right now living in a socialist paradise where Putin and Zelensky are are happily married same sex couple and house prices are so low that only people younger than 30 bother to buy them (everyone else just moves from mansion to mansion on an ad hoc basis whenever they feel like it).

But even reflecting on the choice not taken is to ignore the bigger picture: American politics and its first-past-the-post system is designed for activists to move the goalposts themselves. The way to change the system is to fight for control of the choices that are offered. It's not a trolley problem where you have to choose between 5 people (Trump) and 1 person (Biden). In fact it doesn't take a great deal for a motivated and coherent opposition to take over one of those two choices and completely redefine it - we've seen that happen repeatedly on the Republican side since WWII: from Nixon's Southern Strategy to the Reagan/Bush neo-liberal war hawks, to the Tea Party, to MAGA and MAGA 2.0. The idea that it is a 'lesser of two evil choices' or that the USA is split into 'red states and blue states' is as arbitrary a constraint as the trolley problem, and about as useful tbh.

and I think the same could be said about many other such issues (including Weimar, tbh).

 

[Seeds]

That's the point. Who's the 'greater good' supporting? Who's the 'lesser evil' supporting?.
If we're using slavery, hatred, fear, discrimination to help grow our industry and win a war against a 'greater evil', is it something we should aim for, burden ourselves with or vote for?


Gravity is a constant that will exist throughout existence, regardless of our definitions. Ideals aren't.

We have ideas of rights, wants and needs in terms of what best suits our survival.
Good and evil is something we access to defend, improve or protect our collective.
It's a nuanced Trolley Problem.
But I think we need people to engage with and answer honestly the basics before we can push more.

View attachment 2468369

You make an action to kill an innocent person.
Or you do the same thing you normally do everyday of your life, and multiple people die due to your actions/inactions.


My honest answer is that I'm not strong enough to switch tracks.

The only evil in this example is the person who would choose to kill 4 extra people that didnt need to die because they want to falsely feel more pure. The action to kill 5 vs 1 are both choices made by the train driver. The train driver doesnt get to pretend if he doesnt switch the track then its not a choice he made. He makes the choice in both cases. The only thing he didnt get to choose was being put in the situation in the first place. If he doesnt switch tracks then he should be given life in prison. If he does switch the tracks he should be labelled a hero.

 

[Seeds]

Aristotle, as found in Nicomachean Ethics, via Thomas a Kempis' The Imitation of Christ: "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." In a modern parlance, the 'lesser of two evils' is seen as a good thing; you are better off voting for the devil you know versus the devil you don't. You are better off letting the okay win instead of holding out for the better or the perfect.

Is it truly worthwhile to eschew what you truly desire for incremental gains, especially when knowing that those incremental gains can be overthrown, when the democracy created to enshrine the rights of the people can be overturned (and the Weimar Republic is hardly the sole exemplar here, just the best one) when the desires of those who are affected are ignored in favour of those whose opinions are least affected?

In short, does this hold true for you? Do you truly, deeply think that advocating for the lesser of two evils is a worthwhile approach? Or are you of a mind that such leads to stagnation and ideological paralysis or - worse - the slow eventual victory of those who will stop at nothing to win?

If left wingers who were rightfully disgusted by how the democrats mistreated sanders during the 2016 democratic primaries showed up and voted clinton in as president would the usa be a better place? At the very least the supreme court would not be controlled by conservative extremists. Is this not the better outcome? Or do you believe outcomes dont matter and only deontological purity matters regardless of who gets hurt?

 

[Seeds]

I have read that this scenario becomes even more challenging if we assume the 5 are older adults and the 1 person a child.

What would AI do? A self driving car has to make a decision of staying on course and killing 5 people or swerving but killing 1 person. Add a third scenario. The car can swerve right into a wall killing the owner of the car and the car itself.

The third one is a much more interesting question. The car is an extension of the owner and the owner has a right to preserve their own life above others if it comes down to your life vs anothers and everyone is equally innocent/responsible for the situation they have found themselves in (it rarely does). Thus killing the one person on the road is still probably the right answer. Although if its one 5 year old kid vs 5 eighty year olds then you choose killing the 5 adults to die as they have 5-10 years left each making up a total of 50 years. The 5 year old has 75-80 years left. In this simple theoretical example the calculus is much easier then in reality when there are more variables in play.

 

[Episode IV]

Aristotle, as found in Nicomachean Ethics, via Thomas a Kempis' The Imitation of Christ: "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." In a modern parlance, the 'lesser of two evils' is seen as a good thing; you are better off voting for the devil you know versus the devil you don't. You are better off letting the okay win instead of holding out for the better or the perfect.

Is it truly worthwhile to eschew what you truly desire for incremental gains, especially when knowing that those incremental gains can be overthrown, when the democracy created to enshrine the rights of the people can be overturned (and the Weimar Republic is hardly the sole exemplar here, just the best one) when the desires of those who are affected are ignored in favour of those whose opinions are least affected?

In short, does this hold true for you? Do you truly, deeply think that advocating for the lesser of two evils is a worthwhile approach? Or are you of a mind that such leads to stagnation and ideological paralysis or - worse - the slow eventual victory of those who will stop at nothing to win?

Seems you have been thinking about it.

If you wish to understand what your'e looking at, however, I'd advise you walk all the way the thing youre observing rather than standing on one place and looking from only one direction.

 

[Gethelred]

If left wingers who were rightfully disgusted by how the democrats mistreated sanders during the 2016 democratic primaries showed up and voted clinton in as president would the usa be a better place?

It would be precisely the same place it is right now, albeit with the mask of decency Trump tore off still intact.

At the very least the supreme court would not be controlled by conservative extremists. Is this not the better outcome? Or do you believe outcomes dont matter and only deontological purity matters regardless of who gets hurt?

Sometimes, 'good enough' is simply not good enough.

The point of this thread is asking people, how far does the status quo have to push you before you start pushing back? At what point does that lesser of two evils cease being a worthwhile distinction?

For the American people, it's clearly not enacting coups around the world, nor is interfering in the politics of allies, nor is it foreign wars, nor is it violations of sovereignty, nor is it drone strikes without formal declaration of war, nor is it the torture and incarceration of minorities and enemies of the state, nor is it the bombings of civilians from other countries outside of wartime or anything resembling a fair pretext. It is only when those policies and methodologies are replicated at home that the population starts to care.

Seeds, the problem you have here is that you're looking at Trump as someone who I'd refer to as the greater evil, and that I'd probably have voted for Hillary in '16 and Harris in '24. While probably true, the real issue here isn't that America's conduct has changed, because for the rest of the world it hasn't really all that much; they've always treated the rest of the world as an opportunity for profit whether in full public view or on the sly. No, the difference here is that he's only so unconscionable because of what he's doing at home; the acts of government enacted by him no less than the iniquity of what his country has done overseas for more than a century.

For the purposes of this thread Trump is definitely a greater evil, but America has been so for much longer than Trump has been around.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The third one is a much more interesting question. The car is an extension of the owner and the owner has a right to preserve their own life above others if it comes down to your life vs anothers and everyone is equally innocent/responsible for the situation they have found themselves in (it rarely does). Thus killing the one person on the road is still probably the right answer. Although if its one 5 year old kid vs 5 eighty year olds then you choose killing the 5 adults to die as they have 5-10 years left each making up a total of 50 years. The 5 year old has 75-80 years left. In this simple theoretical example the calculus is much easier then in reality when there are more variables in play.

It becomes a question of utility and future potential, doesn't it?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Seems you have been thinking about it.

If you wish to understand what your'e looking at, however, I'd advise you walk all the way the thing youre observing rather than standing on one place and looking from only one direction.

Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, Ethics, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica

Utilitarianism, in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill according to which an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness.

www.britannica.com

 

[Episode IV]

Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, Ethics, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica

Utilitarianism, in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill according to which an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness.

www.britannica.com

Thats a good way of looking at it, but one should bear in mind the counterarguments.

One of which is that the consequences of actions, in this context those of governments, are too often assumed and are only fully or even partially realised with the passage of time; and thus what might be considered good or evil results, regardless of initial motive or intent, can only be theorised or guessed at at the time action is taken.

All too often, the "Greater good" is something philosophers and historians talk about long after actions are taken, and which politicians frame or define according to their own objectives.

I'm discovering the limitations of trying to answer complicated questions on this little tiny phone.

 

[Green Hammer]

For the purposes of this thread Trump is definitely a greater evil, but America has been so for much longer than Trump has been around.

Democrats arent challenging him on anything so that declaration is not right

 

[Festerz]

Aristotle, as found in Nicomachean Ethics, via Thomas a Kempis' The Imitation of Christ: "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." In a modern parlance, the 'lesser of two evils' is seen as a good thing; you are better off voting for the devil you know versus the devil you don't. You are better off letting the okay win instead of holding out for the better or the perfect.

Is it truly worthwhile to eschew what you truly desire for incremental gains, especially when knowing that those incremental gains can be overthrown, when the democracy created to enshrine the rights of the people can be overturned (and the Weimar Republic is hardly the sole exemplar here, just the best one) when the desires of those who are affected are ignored in favour of those whose opinions are least affected?

In short, does this hold true for you? Do you truly, deeply think that advocating for the lesser of two evils is a worthwhile approach? Or are you of a mind that such leads to stagnation and ideological paralysis or - worse - the slow eventual victory of those who will stop at nothing to win?

Excellent proposition for discussion. Reminds me of the pareto optimal stuff that often came up in my undergraduate economic studies. And not as esoteric as it might seem at first glance as it has, in my experience, frequent daily real world applications in both our private and public lives.

The best advice I ever had was from a brilliant wise soul who was my senior work colleague and unofficial mentor in a graduate role in government moons ago. Constantly reminded my perfectionist principled former self to focus on relativities rather than absolutes when examining immediate policy options lest I end up achieving nothing at all. The Queen Mary changing course analogy - using the perfection goal as the long term compass that guides you to make the right, if imperfect, short term decisions.

I think a lot of politicians start off like that btw - principled individuals having grand visions of the world they want to help create. But the trouble is they abandon the vision and become driven solely by short term outcomes that secure their survival. Seeing it first hand destroyed my faith in the political process pretty early on.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I think a lot of politicians start off like that btw - principled individuals having grand visions of the world they want to help create. But the trouble is they abandon the vision and become driven solely by short term outcomes that secure their survival. Seeing it first hand destroyed my faith in the political process pretty early on.

Political parties need war chests to campaign on and donors with vested interests will always be able to buy a sympathetic ear to keep that war chest ticking over.

 

[Episode IV]

Excellent proposition for discussion. Reminds me of the pareto optimal stuff that often came up in my undergraduate economic studies. And not as esoteric as it might seem at first glance as it has, in my experience, frequent daily real world applications in both our private and public lives.

The best advice I ever had was from a brilliant wise soul who was my senior work colleague and unofficial mentor in a graduate role in government moons ago. Constantly reminded my perfectionist principled former self to focus on relativities rather than absolutes when examining immediate policy options lest I end up achieving nothing at all. The Queen Mary changing course analogy - using the perfection goal as the long term compass that guides you to make the right, if imperfect, short term decisions.

I think a lot of politicians start off like that btw - principled individuals having grand visions of the world they want to help create. But the trouble is they abandon the vision and become driven solely by short term outcomes that secure their survival. Seeing it first hand destroyed my faith in the political process pretty early on.

To reinforce my earlier point, it’s important to remember that identifying the “lesser of two evils” isn’t always possible in the moment. Regardless of initial intentions, the long-term consequences of major decisions are not always immediately foreseeable.

I'll use the Miners’ Strikes of the mid-1980s in England as an example.
In broad strokes, Thatcher’s government began closing unprofitable coal mines, triggering widespread unemployment and economic hardship. Both the government and Arthur Scargill were heavily criticised, initially for the economic repercussions, and later for the rather heavy-handed tactics used to break the strikes.
Thatcher (and Scargill) remain hated figures in parts of England, especially in the North, to this day.

Fast forward to 2025.
With coal effectively in the process of being phased out, and the country moving toward cleaner energy, would we still view the shutdown of the coal industry in the same way?

 

[Festerz]

To reinforce my earlier point, it’s important to remember that identifying the “lesser of two evils” isn’t always possible in the moment. Regardless of initial intentions, the long-term consequences of major decisions are not always immediately foreseeable.

I'll use the Miners’ Strikes of the mid-1980s in England as an example.
In broad strokes, Thatcher’s government began closing unprofitable coal mines, triggering widespread unemployment and economic hardship. Both the government and Arthur Scargill were heavily criticised, initially for the economic repercussions, and later for the rather heavy-handed tactics used to break the strikes.
Thatcher (and Scargill) remain hated figures in parts of England, especially in the North, to this day.

Fast forward to 2025.
With coal effectively in the process of being phased out, and the country moving toward cleaner energy, would we still view the shutdown of the coal industry in the same way?

Again the context matters.

The National Coal Board wanting to close pits in the UK in the 1980s was all about balance sheet finances. And Thatcher's militant stance in support of that action was primarily about politics - specifically reducing union power in Britain which underpinned her free market 'Thatcherism' economic policy agenda.

The move away from fossil fuel processing and its use in the 21st century is about the environment. And specifically the overwhelming scientific evidence that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global warming which poses an immediate existential threat to ecosystems through effects like extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and food and water scarcity.

 

[Seeds]

To reinforce my earlier point, it’s important to remember that identifying the “lesser of two evils” isn’t always possible in the moment. Regardless of initial intentions, the long-term consequences of major decisions are not always immediately foreseeable.

I'll use the Miners’ Strikes of the mid-1980s in England as an example.
In broad strokes, Thatcher’s government began closing unprofitable coal mines, triggering widespread unemployment and economic hardship. Both the government and Arthur Scargill were heavily criticised, initially for the economic repercussions, and later for the rather heavy-handed tactics used to break the strikes.
Thatcher (and Scargill) remain hated figures in parts of England, especially in the North, to this day.

Fast forward to 2025.
With coal effectively in the process of being phased out, and the country moving toward cleaner energy, would we still view the shutdown of the coal industry in the same way?

While thatcher was an environmentalist i dont think emissions was playing a role in her thinking.

The benefit of closing down the subsidisation of coal mines was to improve the budget so that future generations wouldnt be lumped with as much tax, all else equal.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Sure, sometimes. A thief is less evil than a murderer. But I don't know if a single murderer is less evil than a mass murderer. When it comes to some things, there's a threshold by which you pass and after that there's no moral difference. Or as Dom Toretto said, "it don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning's winning".

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The best advice I ever had was from a brilliant wise soul who was my senior work colleague and unofficial mentor in a graduate role in government moons ago. Constantly reminded my perfectionist principled former self to focus on relativities rather than absolutes when examining immediate policy options lest I end up achieving nothing at all. The Queen Mary changing course analogy - using the perfection goal as the long term compass that guides you to make the right, if imperfect, short term decisions.

I think there are very important questions to ask in such a situation though. Firstly, is it possible to have the perfection in the short-term? If so, why not do it? If not, what's stopping it from being possible?

Only if there is something stopping perfection that can't be changed, or doesn't make sense to be changed, is it good to accept the imperfect decision. Otherwise, we're just getting suboptimal outcomes for no good reason.

Perhaps this sounds really obvious. But sometimes I think people operate under the assumption that perfection isn't possible, without stopping to consider, what if it is?

In politics, I have heard people lecture others many times, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", without ever explaining why perfection can't be achieved. Maybe if we understood what was preventing it, we could change that so that we could have perfection.

 

[Seeds]

Sure, sometimes. A thief is less evil than a murderer. But I don't know if a single murderer is less evil than a mass murderer. When it comes to some things, there's a threshold by which you pass and after that there's no moral difference. Or as Dom Toretto said, "it don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning's winning".

I still think there can be a moral difference even if the justified penalty is the same, i.e. life in prison whether one kills 1 or 1000.

 

[Seeds]

I think there are very important questions to ask in such a situation though. Firstly, is it possible to have the perfection in the short-term? If so, why not do it? If not, what's stopping it from being possible?

Only if there is something stopping perfection that can't be changed, or doesn't make sense to be changed, is it good to accept the imperfect decision. Otherwise, we're just getting suboptimal outcomes for no good reason.

Perhaps this sounds really obvious. But sometimes I think people operate under the assumption that perfection isn't possible, without stopping to consider, what if it is?

In politics, I have heard people lecture others many times, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", without ever explaining why perfection can't be achieved. Maybe if we understood what was preventing it, we could change that so that we could have perfection.

Largely agree with this. However sometimes we dont know with certainty if something is perfection even though we think it probably is. In those cases some hesitancy/testing/incrementalism is justified. But it doesnt mean we should stop pursuing the goal of perfectionism as comservatists argue or settle for something less. It just means we pace ourselves and review as we pursue it.

 

[Seeds]

Political parties need war chests to campaign on and donors with vested interests will always be able to buy a sympathetic ear to keep that war chest ticking over.

Not if we make tax payers provide those war chests and ban all private donations.

 

[Episode IV]

Again the context matters.

The National Coal Board wanting to close pits in the UK in the 1980s was all about balance sheet finances. And Thatcher's militant stance in support of that action was primarily about politics - specifically reducing union power in Britain which underpinned her free market 'Thatcherism' economic policy agenda.

The move away from fossil fuel processing and its use in the 21st century is about the environment. And specifically the overwhelming scientific evidence that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global warming which poses an immediate existential threat to ecosystems through effects like extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and food and water scarcity.

I'm aware of all that, hence my use of the phrase "regardless of initial motivations or intent" more than once. I doubt anyone would try to argue that Thatcher was acting out of environmental concerns.

Yes, the context does matter. That was a part of the point I was making.
We're discussing the concept of the "lesser of two evils", and there was a reason I posed my last paragraph in the previous post as a question, rather than a statement.
There are times in which taking the unpopular path, or the least ethically comfortable decision, is the one which plays out to be the lesser of two evils in the long term, but is unrecognised as such in the short(er) term. Furthermore, in those cases where it does not turn out to be such, a great effort is put into making it appear as if it was.

An issue I have with the Queen Mary analogy is that it assumes the Queen Mary has a competent Captain - one who, at least, isn't going to get her hit broadside on from an approaching rogue wave whilst trying to turn away from it. The Queen Mary, after all, does turn very, very slowly.