i refuse to choose the lesser of two evils

=====

“… but there is a certain point where trying to choose between the lesser of two evils is just an exercise in futility. It doesn’t matter what you choose … both are so bad you struggle to discern which would be worse. Therefore, I refuse to choose.”

Alex Verus

———–

So. The opening quote is from a character in a fantasy book, but, that said, we have all been in a situation where all the choices look bad, or not so good — but definitely not good.

This is the choice of the lesser of two evils:

—

The lesser of two evils principle (or lesser evil principle) is the principle that when faced with selecting from two unpleasant options, the one which is least harmful should be chosen.

—

Let’s just say, well, it sucks. And it sucks even worse when we stop and fruitlessly seek some silver lining in what is, frankly, no good choice trying to convince ourselves it isn’t ‘actually’ that bad a choice. But. It is a bad choice.

This is not one of those choices where someone says “sometimes the wrong choice puts you in the right place.” The only place this choice puts you is in a bad place, sure, maybe less bad than somewhere else, but bad. In game theory it is typically known as the no-win situation – an unavoidable decision with unavoidable an outcome which encompasses the losses of whatever value resides within the choice.

Uhm. And, yet, the character decided to not choose. Why?

At some point it becomes an exercise in futility.

Now. If there was ever an example of ‘no choice actually being a choice’. this may be it. In fact, it may actually be ‘the win’ choice.

Huh?

It seems like when faced with a lesser of two evils far too often we look at harm associated with the choice itself and not the harm to ourselves.

This may sound crazy, but survival is not always the desired outcome.

Huh?

Well. If survival means sacrificing all that you find valuable & important to your self, you better be damn sure it is worth the evil you are choosing.

And that is what the character in the book is saying.

“I choose neither of the evils because if I did … I live … but I may not be able to live with myself.”

Well.

Personally, I probably think about this ‘live with myself’ with regard to my decisions more than most people and possibly more than is productive or healthy for me. But.

I have seen success and I have seen failure.

I have had rewards and suffered penalties.

I have risen toward the top and scrambled to get free of the bottom.

Through it all the only one, the only thing consistent, is me.

Just saying ‘I survived’ <and this can be in business, life or situational> is not enough for me. Never has. Possibly because I have seen the wounds inflicted upon character, esteem and integrity with basic ‘I survived’ choices. Personally, I don’t want to survive if I have to sacrifice … well … me <the character portion … not the physical portion>.

To be clear. This is a personal choice and I do not judge others on how they choose.

To be clear. This personal decision comes with a cost. But it is a cost I am willing to bear because it only costs me material rewards & society-based successes. It doesn’t cost me any of what resides within me.

Look.

Choosing between the lesser of two evils is almost always actually choosing between three evils: the two choices and what evil it inflicts upon yourself.

I cannot tell anyone what to do when faced with a ‘no win’ scenario.

That is for each person to face on their own and decide what is best for them. But I can tell everyone you should think about it.

It can be a ‘no win’ choice just make sure you, yourself, also doesn’t win. Because losing yourself in addition to having to choose between a lesser of two evils means, well, some version of evil has won.

Ponder.