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

[Vassp]

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?

evil and lesser evil are still evil, Only way we are going to fix this world is a complete reset of thinking.

Reset of government etc. the only problem with that is that as humans we are inheritantly Egotistical and power driven.

There is so much crap out there the more you dig the worse it gets.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

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

This is a great idea. Let's make it happen!

 

[Mofra]

The reincarnation of this argument in the 20th century is an interesting one, Rawls vs Sen (justice philosophy).

Perfectionism vs incrementalism. We live in an imperfect world so judging actions by perfect standards can be folly.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The reincarnation of this argument in the 20th century is an interesting one, Rawls vs Sen (justice philosophy).

Perfectionism vs incrementalism. We live in an imperfect world so judging actions by perfect standards can be folly.

Okay, but what if the increments we could take are bigger than what we've been told we can take by those in power? What if they're intentionally trying to lower our expectations because change goes against their personal interests?

 

[Mofra]

Okay, but what if the increments we could take are bigger than what we've been told we can take by those in power? What if they're intentionally trying to lower our expectations because change goes against their personal interests?

Don't listen to those on power and rely on our own summations?

The issue is perfectionism vs incrementalism. Do we ignore improvement because we should reject anything imperfect?
Perfection rarely exists in the real world.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Don't listen to those on power and rely on our own summations?

The issue is perfectionism vs incrementalism. Do we ignore improvement because we should reject anything imperfect?
Perfection rarely exists in the real world.

Yes, and I've accepted your basic premise that incrementalism is needed. After that it's fair to question whether the size of the increment we've been told is appropriate, is really all we can have.

I think in politics, many people do listen to those in power, some because they're uncomfortable with change, others because they really don't want the other side of politics to have power.

 

[Seeds]

Thankfully I have megyn kelly on ignore and didnt have to see her contribution to this thread this week.