Lesser-evil arguments make people forget they chose evil

Evidence

The second objection concerns the cumulativeness of lesser evils. As Eyal Weizman has commented, ā€œEven according to the terms of an economy of losses and gains, the concept of the lesser evil risks becoming counterproductive: less brutal measures are also those that may be more easily naturalized, accepted and tolerated—and hence more frequently used, with the result that a greater evil may be reached cumulatively.ā€ To claim to have produced fewer civilian victims in each strike reduces the military reputational cost of each one, making it likely that more strikes will take place and thereby increasing the total number of victims. Another way of putting it is to say that the trees of a surgical strike conceal a forest of tombs. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 592 (#expands, via linked claim)

But because I hold that it is an error to require that the arguments of an opinion explain how the decision was reached rather than how it can be rationalized, this is not an argument, on my terms, for an additional modality. — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 408 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: The lesser-evil logic measures morality against one’s own violence; Opinion arguments rationalize decisions rather than explain how they are reached. — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 408; Per-strike ā€˜lesser evil’ claims cumulatively yield a greater total evil. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 592

Broader Connections