Lesser Evil Dilemma

[Charlemagne_III]

Sometimes in life we are confronted by two choices that are evil, but one is the lesser evil and we must choose it or the greater evil will prevail. I’ve not seen this dilemma mentioned anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does anyone know if the matter is discussed there or in any of the Church Councils or writings of the popes and theologians?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Vico]

Sometimes in life we are confronted by two choices that are evil, but one is the lesser evil and we must choose it or the greater evil will prevail. I’ve not seen this dilemma mentioned anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does anyone know if the matter is discussed there or in any of the Church Councils or writings of the popes and theologians?

Thanks for your help.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

Re: Double Effect.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.

“The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.” 65
65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. 69

Infanticide [killing of an infant], 70 fratricide [the killing of one’s brother or sister.], parricide [the killing of a parent or other near relative], and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

69 Cf. Gen 4:10.
70 Cf. Gaudium et Spes 51 § 3f
​

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Sometimes in life we are confronted by two choices that are evil, but one is the lesser evil and we must choose it or the greater evil will prevail. I’ve not seen this dilemma mentioned anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does anyone know if the matter is discussed there or in any of the Church Councils or writings of the popes and theologians?

Thanks for your help.

Charlemagne:

Just in the off-chance you are asking this in the context of the up-coming presidential election and want to decide which candidate is the “lesser of two evils”, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, let me offer a suggestion that our deacon gave at last Sunday’s homily.

Given that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next president instead of asking which is the lesser of the two evils, ask yourself this: Which one is more likely to do the most good?

My :twocents:

 

[o_mlly]

Sometimes in life we are confronted by two choices that are evil, but one is the lesser evil and we must choose it or the greater evil will prevail. I’ve not seen this dilemma mentioned anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does anyone know if the matter is discussed there or in any of the Church Councils or writings of the popes and theologians?

Thanks for your help.

I believe the “Choice of the Lesser Evil” is a Protestant moral guide.

The “Object of the act”, as one of the Catholic determinants of the overall morality of the act, may never be evil. One may not choose either the greater or lesser evil. Intention and circumstance cannot make an act that is evil in itself ever good.

Catholics can passively tolerate a lesser evil (choose to not act) but cannot actively choose to commit an evil act.

The double effect principle does not apply when both effects are evil since the principles require that one of the effects is always good.

Hope that helps.

 

[phil19034]

I believe the “Choice of the Lesser Evil” is a Protestant moral guide.

The “Object of the act”, as one of the Catholic determinants of the overall morality of the act, may never be evil. One may not choose either the greater or lesser evil. Intention and circumstance cannot make an act that is evil in itself ever good.

Catholics can passively tolerate a lesser evil (choose to not act) but cannot actively choose to commit an evil act.

The double effect principle does not apply when both effects are evil since the principles require that one of the effects is always good.

Hope that helps.

I believe this is where the “lesser of two evils” comes into play. When you are dealing with two evils and when you are FORCED to make a choice between the two, the moral thing is the choose the one which will cause the least evil. Because the ends do not justify the means, you can’t necessary look at which will “do the most good” because if that “good” comes from greater evil, then it’s not good.

The truth, however, is that the “lesser of two evils” rarely comes into play in everyday life.

 

[BobCatholic]

There’s the flip side of the coin - the lesser good dilemma, where we must always choose the greater good or else it is a sin to choose the lesser good.

 

[dshix]

As other posters have mentioned, the principle of “double effect” is what is used to determine the correct course of action in situations as these.
LostSheep gave a great tip: to choose the greater of two goods instead of willing the evil of either situation, and o_mlly made a very good observation:

The “Object of the act”, as one of the Catholic determinants of the overall morality of the act, may never be evil. One may not choose either the greater or lesser evil. Intention and circumstance cannot make an act that is evil in itself ever good.

Catholics can passively tolerate a lesser evil (choose to not act) but cannot actively choose to commit an evil act.

This means that you must examine the two choices and look for three things:

1. 
   *]The act which you do must, in itself, be morally good or neutral. You cannot do an evil act to bring about some good effect.
   *]The good effect of your act must be greater than the evil effect, AND there must be sufficient cause to cause the two effects at all.
   *]You must NOT will the evil effect directly. You must will the good effect only, and tolerate the evil effect.
   
   If those three conditions are met, you can make the choice between the two options, choosing the choice that brings about the most good.
   

   ---

   As others have mentioned, the idea of “choose the lesser of two evils” flies in the face of this principle, by violating the 3rd item on this list (and oftentimes also the 1st item).
   
   Here’s a quick example, which is often cited by uneducated persons as an “impossible” moral dilemma.
   
   A train is going down the track, headed directly towards 10 people who are trapped on the rails for some reason. In that moment, you have the option to flip a lever to redirect the train to another track, where, unfortunately, there is an unsuspecting person who will be killed if you do so. What should you do?
   
   The answer is that you may flip the lever, intending to save the 10 people. You are, of course, sad that one person will still die, but you are acting to save the 10.
   1. 
      *]The act itself is morally neutral (flipping a lever)
      *]The good effect is greater than the evil effect (good effect: saving 10 people; evil effect: killing 1 person)
      *]You intend only the good effect.
      
      To be clear, another option that would also be permissible is to do nothing. If in those moments you were unable to determine the moral course of action, no sin of omission would be committed by doing nothing.
      I hope this helps.

 

[dshix]

A train is going down the track, headed directly towards 10 people who are trapped on the rails for some reason. In that moment, you have the option to flip a lever to redirect the train to another track, where, unfortunately, there is an unsuspecting person who will be killed if you do so. What should you do?

I should add that if we changed the hypothetical and added the detail that the only way to save the 10 people would be by pushing a fat person in front of the train, causing it to abruptly stop, this would violate the first condition of double effect, rendering the act immoral.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

Re: Double Effect.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.

“The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.” 65
65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. 69

Infanticide [killing of an infant], 70 fratricide [the killing of one’s brother or sister.], parricide [the killing of a parent or other near relative], and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

69 Cf. Gen 4:10.
70 Cf. Gaudium et Spes 51 § 3f
​

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments.

I understand THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT, yet I think it is separate from the question of choosing the lesser evil when, as phil points out, we are FORCED to choose between two evils. Why the Catechism does not seem to address this directly for the layperson to understand, and by giving concrete examples, mystifies me. I have other issues with the Catechism as an incomplete source on moral questions, but this is one of the more irritating lapses.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I should add that if we changed the hypothetical and added the detail that the only way to save the 10 people would be by pushing a fat person in front of the train, causing it to abruptly stop, this would violate the first condition of double effect, rendering the act immoral.

How fat would the person have to be to stop a train?

 

[o_mlly]

How fat would the person have to be to stop a train?

Let mt = the mass of the train,
Let mf = the mass of the fat man,
Let vt = the velocity of the train
Let vf = the velocity of the fat man,
Solve for mf.

 

[dshix]

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments.

I understand THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT, yet I think it is separate from the question of choosing the lesser evil when, as phil points out, we are FORCED to choose between two evils. Why the Catechism does not seem to address this directly for the layperson to understand, and by giving concrete examples, mystifies me. I have other issues with the Catechism as an incomplete source on moral questions, but this is one of the more irritating lapses.

There is no option to choose between two evils. I struggle to think of a situation where there would not be an option to choose the greater good, and you would even have reason to choose between two evils.

In ordinary experience, where there is a “lesser of two evils” situation, the correct way to think of it is ALWAYS in terms of double effect, because generally it can apply. In cases that it cannot apply, then one must not act to commit one of the evils.

 

[Bookcat]

One would choose not evil (that is not something one may choose) but the good.

 

[STT]

…Because the ends do not justify the means, you can’t necessary look at which will “do the most good” because if that “good” comes from greater evil, then it’s not good…

Of course greater evil is good choice compared to less evil if greater good comes from it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If two evils are approximately of equal weight, or we cannot distinguish the gravity of one from the gravity of the other, of course we should choose neither.

But the dilemma I am considering is whether, in a case where we are required to choose, we should choose the lesser evil if we are able to determine which is the lesser evil.

Imagine a presidential election with two candidates, one of whom is bound to win. One is an experienced politician and a proven pathological liar. The other is not an experienced politician but has no proven history of pathological lying.

We are obliged to choose between the liar and the political novice because one of them is bound to win even though other candidates may be in the race.

If we fail to choose (decide not to vote) have we satisfied the requirement never to choose an evil? If we decide to choose, which would be the lesser evil?

 

[fhansen]

If two evils are approximately of equal weight, or we cannot distinguish the gravity of one from the gravity of the other, of course we should choose neither.

But the dilemma I am considering is whether, in a case where we are required to choose, we should choose the lesser evil if we are able to determine which is the lesser evil.

Imagine a presidential election with two candidates, one of whom is bound to win. One is an experienced politician and a proven pathological liar. The other is not an experienced politician but has no proven history of pathological lying.

We are obliged to choose between the liar and the political novice because one of them is bound to win even though other candidates may be in the race.

If we fail to choose (decide not to vote) have we satisfied the requirement never to choose an evil? If we decide to choose, which would be the lesser evil?

Has there ever been an election where either of the candidates satisfied the requirements for moral perfection? If not, should we never vote?

 

[Bookcat]

Of course greater evil is good choice compared to less evil if greater good comes from it.

HUh?

not.

 

[STT]

HUh?

not.

Lets assume that lesser evil leads to greater evil while greater evil leads to greater good or even less evil. Which one do you pick?

 

[dshix]

Lets assume that lesser evil leads to greater evil while greater evil leads to greater good or even less evil. Which one do you pick?

You cannot morally choose either, because by either option, you are required to commit an evil act. The ends cannot justify the means.

 

[o_mlly]

If two evils are approximately of equal weight, or we cannot distinguish the gravity of one from the gravity of the other, of course we should choose neither.

But the dilemma I am considering is whether, in a case where we are required to choose, we should choose the lesser evil if we are able to determine which is the lesser evil.

Imagine a presidential election with two candidates, one of whom is bound to win. One is an experienced politician and a proven pathological liar. The other is not an experienced politician but has no proven history of pathological lying.

We are obliged to choose between the liar and the political novice because one of them is bound to win even though other candidates may be in the race.

If we fail to choose (decide not to vote) have we satisfied the requirement never to choose an evil? If we decide to choose, which would be the lesser evil?

On the topic thread, see:
MAKING GOOD MORAL CHOICES: TWO APPROACHES by Rev. Ronald Lawler, Joseph Boyle and William May ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/PROPORT.TXT.

The authors argue that morality of "the greater good’ and “the lesser evil” are extensions of proportionalism in which an immoral act is seemingly justified by its outcomes.

Proportionalists argue that were one not required to choose the greater good or the lesser evil, the alternatives obliges the actor to choose the lesser good or the greater evil which the authors show as patently absurd. The authors also point out the inherent weakness in the proportionalist’s supposition that it is possible to determine which alternative has the better or the less bad effects overall.

On our political predicament, before watching this video, I planned to vote and go home and take a shower. See:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14248572#post14248572.