Lesser of two evils?

So I have a question I have read a number of peoples posts and they have used the term "lesser of two evils" I have been thinking on that and I just wonder what does one really mean when they say that? Isn't evil, evil? Does the Bible talk about there being a "degree" of evil somewhere? I just don't understand that term, if two things are evil how can one be less evil then another?
rdg

I think what they are trying to say is that both are evil but one would be doing less evil than the other. That is to mean that the one who is the "lesser" would not be doing as much harm to his fellow man and promoting as much ungodliness.

by rbanks on 2012/7/12 16:59:45

I think what they are trying to say is that both are evil but one would be doing less evil than the other. That is to mean that the one who is the "lesser" would not be doing as much harm to his fellow man and promoting as much ungodliness.

----
ok but what does God say about this? Have you ever read in the Bible where it talks about there being any kind of "degrees" of evil? I mean if a decision I make promotes ungodliness in anyway then isn't that just evil in the eyes of the Lord??

rdg

This is what came to mind first:

I can not think of an instance in the Bible where God says one sin is more evil than another. But there are instances where one sin is seemingly given more "weight" by the consequences it brings. For example:

1 Corintians 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

This verse compares sexual sin to all other sins, and concludes that from the perspective of one's own body, sexual sin is the most evil of sins. To God, sin is sin and is therefore always evil. However, some sins may come with greater consequences (read: greater evil). I reckon that is what people mean by the "lesser of two evils".

Very good Dlight!

RDG,

Also Jesus says in the scriptures "you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him".

Being that we all have been born with an evil nature is there not some people you would trust more than others. Is there not some you had rather fellowship with than others? Are there not some you had rather see govern affairs than others?

Well some might believe that it is better to do something that might save some people than to stand by and do nothing while much more people perish.

jesus spoke about some people being punished with more strips and some worth less ,,,,the impresion being left in the mind of his deciples would have been one of ,some people did worses evils and will recive more strips ,and others did less evil but they will still recive strips only less

jesus said about certaint citys ,i think chorazan ,,that it would be better for sodom and gomera in judment day then that city ,,becasue of the works that jesus performed ,and there rejection of christ

this shows that it is a greater evil to hear the word of god from christ himself ,and reject him ,,then what was going on in sodom

hence them fairing worse on judment day

a woreser punisment allways implys a worse crime ,and a worser crime can be easly unerstood as a worser evil ,, in contex with these verses

blessings

ps ,, blasheming the holy spirit ,would be conciderd a sin that will not be forgivern by god ,,because of the great evil it implies

by Dlight on 2012/7/12 17:46:15

This is what came to mind first:

I can not think of an instance in the Bible where God says one sin is more evil than another. But there are instances where one sin is seemingly given more "weight" by the consequences it brings.

----

I wasn't actually asking about sin though. I was asking about evil. If two people are evil, or two situations are evil, or if two choices are evil how can one be less evil then the other??

Isn't evil, evil? You said that to God sin is sin and is therefor always evil so what I am attempting to understanding is where this idea of lesser evil comes from??

-------

by rbanks on 2012/7/12 17:55:08

Very good Dlight!

RDG,

Also Jesus says in the scriptures "you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him".

Being that we all have been born with an evil nature is there not some people you would trust more than others. Is there not some you had rather fellowship with than others? Are there not some you had rather see govern affairs than others?

----

rbanks

I am not deny that all have been born with an evil nature. to answer your question though once you or I have come to Christ we no longer have an evil nature we are new creation in Him so I would be fine to fellowship with you. I would not however be fine to fellowship with someone who is not born again, I would not fellowship with someone who is evil because God Himself tells me not to. He says do not be unequally yoked. Now I can love an evil person and I can share with them, I can feed them, I can clothe them and love on them but I won't go against Gods commend and fellowship with them.

As to your last question this is not about politics for me at all so I am not really going to go there. I was more interested in understanding how Christians apply that statement and reconcile it to what God might have to say about it. I am asking because I want to understand I don't have any answers myself just find it a really strange statement for a christian to make.

rdg

by brothagary on 2012/7/12 19:27:06

jesus spoke about some people being punished with more strips and some worth less ,,,,the impresion being left in the mind of his deciples would have been one of ,some people did worses evils and will recive more strips ,and others did less evil but they will still recive strips only less

jesus said about certaint citys ,i think chorazan ,,that it would be better for sodom and gomera in judment day then that city ,,becasue of the works that jesus performed ,and there rejection of christ

this shows that it is a greater evil to hear the word of god from christ himself ,and reject him ,,then what was going on in sodom

hence them fairing worse on judment day

a woreser punisment allways implys a worse crime ,and a worser crime can be easly unerstood as a worser evil ,, in contex with these verses

blessings

ps ,, blasheming the holy spirit ,would be conciderd a sin that will not be forgivern by god ,,because of the great evil it implies

-----
I do see that a worse punishment does imply a worse evil as understood by the law. Thanks for sharing those portions from the Bible. I do see that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is evil and God does place some degree on that sin because He does say it is unpardonable. Interesting makes me wonder then what is the line to determine what or who is more evil??

rdg

by appolus on 2012/7/12 18:09:01

Hi RDG,

I think you will find this phrase most commonly used by people who want to justify certain actions or participation in systems that may be corrupt, using the argument that if they are not involved in the corrupt system, then the corrupt system will become even more corrupt. It could have been used by people who thought that it would be profitable to kill one man to save a whole nation..........bro Frank

---

the last line in your post really got me thinking. I had never thought about that but you are right.

rdg

You are correct rainydaygirl. Evil is evil. There is no degree of being more evil.

As BT stated, the only thing that I can think of in the Bible is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as the unforgiveable sin.

Good question. I was thinking about this earlier today as well.

Be blessed!

Something came to mind this morning about this subject. Evil is evil, yet God has the ability to punish differently for different things. As BT pointed out about Sodom and Gomorrah and the other city... that is would be worse for that other city then S&G.

Just because the punishment is worse for one evil, does not make the other evil any less evil. Evil is evil. Punishment varies. I may be wrong, but it makes sence in light of the shared scripture.

Be blessed

You are right: sin is sin. Evil is evil.

If one wants to understand sins' definition, start reading at Genesis and keep on until you get to Revelation 22.

When you come to the law as found in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy you will find certain sacrifices mandated for certain sins. But there are some sins for which there was no sacrifice but only a death penalty. No sacrifice could be offered that would cover this sin. Given this reality, are some sins worse then others? What do you think of this in regards to your question?

Today we live under the New Covenant. Jesus did not mandate the death penalty for which there was no sacrifice under the OT law. But he did extend forgiveness with repentance to those sins that earned the death penalty under the OT law.

Why some sins were not forgivable under the OT law makes for an enlightening study. But let us face it, some sins are much harder to repent from. They place its victims in such terrible bondage that one cannot rid himself of its hold by psychology or stern determination. The only way one can be liberated from them is by the infilling and empowering of the Holy Spirit, which is something the OT believers did not have, hence the death penalty (my interpretation.)

Yes, some sins have far more serious consequences socially then others. In any case, it causes serious disruptions in life when they are engaged in with no sense of regret. But in God's eyes all sin will have consequences - this is what we should be concerned about.

by Miccah on 2012/7/13 9:01:12

Something came to mind this morning about this subject. Evil is evil, yet God has the ability to punish differently for different things. As BT pointed out about Sodom and Gomorrah and the other city... that is would be worse for that other city then S&G.

Just because the punishment is worse for one evil, does not make the other evil any less evil. Evil is evil. Punishment varies. I may be wrong, but it makes sence in light of the shared scripture.

Be blessed

------

I was thinking this same thing this morning. Just because God chooses to punish one evil more then another does not mean He is giving his approval some how of either one, both are still evil. So I find myself asking how does a Christian respond when faced with this situation? As a Christian I just don't see how the notion of a "lesser of two evils" plays out in life?? If I as a Christian look at a situation or and issue and determine after prayer that both of my choices are at enmity with God and are in fact evil then why would I ever attempt to choose one? wouldn't it be best just to walk away and leave the outcome in Gods hands instead of trying to determine who is "less" evil?

anyway thanks for the responses it has been interesting

rdg

Like rainyday, I have been thinking about the term “the lesser of two evils” lately. I don’t think that I have ever heard the term as much as I have over the last couple of weeks (and, oddly enough, here on SermonIndex more than anywhere else). Ironically, the term that I have heard was not used by people who plan on making a decision, but as the suggested motivation for those making a decision by others.

In this sense, the term has been used in terms of the upcoming election in the United States. Americans are left with two candidates…and neither of them adheres to a religious persuasion that reflects the Biblical definition of Christianity. So, those in the household of faith who happen to live, work and reside in the United States (or as citizens of this temporary country) are faced with whether or not to vote – to decide that one individual would be better for the American government of consent than the other.

Now, sin is sin. That is not in dispute. And, of course, the man bound by the sin of lust is no better than the man bound by the sin of adultery. After all, in the words of Jesus, the man who lusted has committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28). The man who is angry with a brother will be subject to judgment as well as the man who murders (Matthew 5:22). Thus, there is no “degree” of sin in the sense of gaining eternal punishment and everlasting separation from God.

So, the “lesser of two evils” comes to represent a Catch-22 type of decision, right?

I suppose that the first thing to remember is that the idea of “lesser of two evils” is a man-made term. It is derived from plenty of sources, but it is never found in Scripture. However, there are historic anecdotes for the term.

During the 14th Century, the Greeks, Albanians and Slavs were faced with two terrors. The “Holy” Roman Empire was encamping to their north and west and the Ottomans were encroaching from the east. The adherents to Orthodox and many other traditional Christian sects living in the region were faced with a dilemma. If the Romans conquered, they would be forced to convert to Catholicism or face a “deadly purge.” If the Muslim Ottomans conquered, these groups would be treated as “people of dhimmi” (lesser subjects/citizens).

However, while these groups faced persecution from both sides, they felt that it would be better to live under the rule of the Muslims. As “people of dhimmi,” they would face some persecution, restrictions and taxation just to live in their own country, but they would be allowed the freedom to continue worshiping as they always had. If the Romans conquered, there was no “clear conscience” code for new subjects. It was literally conversion to Roman Catholicism or death if you are caught without allegiance to the Pope. So, a saying became popular among the residents of this area. They said, “Better the turban than the mitre.” In other words, it would be better for them and their families to live under the rule of conquerors wearing the Muslim turban than the Pope wearing his mitre (crown).

Was this the right stand to take?

Well, for one, we haven’t lived in the shoes of the individuals who lived during that time. I suspect that REAL believers facing such a prospect would still serve God no matter who was in power. However, I suspect that they would have preferred to live without the prospect of persecution for their families.

There have been times of persecution throughout the history of this world. Christians who lived under the shadow of communist oppression prayed for the fall of communism. Richard Wurmbrand, the founder of Voice of the Martyrs, urged Western believers to get involved in the government in order to pressure those governments to act on behalf of the underground church and the freedom to worship. The same can be said of other groups too. Whether Romans, Nazis, Communists or other groups were in power, there have been believers praying for the freedom to worship without repercussion – even if they were prepared to endure those things if the times demanded it.

There are other anecdotes through history where individuals had to make “dilemma” type of choices. Not all of these choices were so dire or life-and-death. After all, we are faced with decisions in this world – and this world is a fallen place.

There are individuals who like to maintain the “spiritual” attitude and claim that they don’t make any choices because they allow God to make all of their decisions for them. Well, that is a fine thing…if it were actually true. However, I believe that we are still left with decisions that we must make in this world. The Gospels and Epistles are filled with wisdom on how to make choices. Not only must we make decisions about simple things such as what brand/type of bread, milk, coat, socks or shoes to purchase, but we also must make decisions about where to work, where to live or who to hire (if we are in such a position).

Now, we should always pray for the Lord’s guidance. However, it is difficult to find a believer who asks God about what type of breath mints he should purchase and even more difficult to find a believer who claims that God “told him” to buy a particular brand.

I did know a brother who said that he did this when it came to a computer that he purchased. However, I reminded him that he also searched the internet to determine the processor, the size of the hard drive, the type of monitor as he searched for the best price. So, I reminded him that while God may have “told” him what kind of computer to buy, he didn’t necessarily receive instructions about where to purchase it. He didn’t like anyone questioning his “leading” from God (because I pointed out that the same pc was available for almost half price at a different store). A few months later, he wasn’t quite so adamant about God “told him” to buy it after his computer had problems, stopped working and the store refused to help.

Now, all of these decisions don’t seem pressing, a matter of life or death or having any significant eternal consequences. Yet, it is always important to remember that decisions – including those that can be accused of being the “lesser of two evils” – have CONSEQUENCES. Some of those consequences can have varying degrees of repercussion.

If you were somehow faced with the choice from an intruder of having your child slapped around or violently murdered, what decision would you make? Both decisions have evil consequences, but one is not quite as permanent. If you needed to move into an apartment and the only choices that you could afford were one where the next door neighbor is abusive to his family and plays his music loudly or to move next door to a quiet Jehovah’s Witness, which would you choose? If you needed a car, would you choose a late model on credit or the only lemon that you could afford from a dishonest man? If a single parent can’t afford to send his children to a private school and is not available to home school them (due to a need to work), would he prefer that they attend a school where the teachers and principals are simply unbelievers (regardless of their religious persuasion) performing their jobs or a school that is filled with gang members, sexual promiscuity (high teen birth rate) and violence? If your child was required by law to be enrolled in a school district, would you want the district’s elected Superintendent to be an unbelieving promiscuous man who pushes immorality into the schools or an unbelieving man who simply wants to focus on academics?

All of these decisions seem to be the consideration of “two evils.” Yet while the choices may both be “evil,” the consequences of one decision over the other have notable variance.

There are consequences for every decision that we make. There are consequences for every decision that we don’t make. There are consequences for every decision that God has made for us that we either adhere to or ignore.

Many states now have “good Samaritan” laws. The laws vary but they typically maintain requirements that individuals act when necessary. For instance, in some states, you can’t pass by a fire without either reporting it or trying to put it out (at one point, drivers were required to carry shovels to help prevent small fires from spreading). In most states, residents are required to stop and administer aid (or call for help) if they were to see an accident with injuries. The purpose of the laws is to prevent individuals from claiming that they are making “non-decisions.” Why? Because a “decision to not make a decision” can have dire consequences that can be as clearly defined as if someone made a decision.

Recently, we read a very ugly example of doing nothing.

When former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky was accused of having molested young boys, we learned of a series of bad decisions (and apparent non-decisions) from individuals who came to know about the accusations. Now, these men didn’t commit the acts of Jerry Sandusky. They simply did nothing with the information and accusations that they had become aware of. We don’t know their rationale yet. Maybe they didn’t believe it. Maybe they thought that the man was repentant and that there wasn’t enough evidence. Yet, as a result of their inaction, more children were molested over a period of years.

Sometimes, as Edmund Burke once said, evil can be victorious simply because good men do nothing. This is true on big and little matters. We can pray for our children to be healed by God and hope for the best…or we can take them to an “unbelieving doctor…” or we can simultaneously do both. It is not a sign of a lack of faith but of trusting God for answers while we do what we can with what we have.

Have you ever wondered why David defeated Goliath with a stone and sling (I Samuel 17)? God could have easily killed Goliath without the use of a young man, sling, stone or sword. God could have opened the earth and swallowed Goliath and all of the armies of the Philistines. God could have simply annihilated Goliath in a moment. Yet, God chose David for this purpose. Now, David was young and was not a warrior. He was a shepherd. His talents? He could play skillfully with strings…and he knew how to use a sling.

The use of a sling was not a talent (like using a yo-yo). It was used by shepherds to protect flocks from wolves, lions and bears. It was used by men in battle at that time as well (I Chronicles 12:1-2). David wasn’t opposed to the use of armor or swords. He even tried on Saul’s personal armor. Yet, David was not comfortable with them. So, God took one of the best skills that David had and used it for deliverance of Israel.

David made a decision in this instance when the rest of a mostly-backslidden nation that was led by a backslidden king was unable to make. He saw God and his people maligned…and made the decision that others did not.

Like I said, the consequences of a non-decision can be as bad – or worse – than not making a decision. I sometimes think of the babies that are murdered by the legislation allowing them to do so. That legislation was designed by men who were chosen by a morality or plurality of voters.

In 1930, the nation was overwhelming opposed to abortion. Thirty-three years later, a majority of American women favored the “right” to kill an unborn baby. Favorability of abortion rights continued to climb…until the last decade. The rate of abortion decreased considerably in the United States after 2000 and public sentiment now shows that most Americans disapprove of abortion for the first time in many years. Yet, I have often wondered what would have happened it two Supreme Court justices had changed their minds in 1973. What if legislators had been selected by Americans between 1930 and 1963 that would have saved the lives of millions of unborn children? It might not have necessarily made a difference to abortion overall…but it may have made a difference to ONE child who was not legally slaughtered at a clinic.

So, I do think that there is something of consequence that is tied to decision making. Even when we “abstain” from making decisions or choices, the consequences are sometimes just as “consequential” as if we had made a decision.

In terms of decisions that we are faced, I believe that we must be in prayer about such things. Whether we are praying about whether to take a job, shop at a grocery store, vote in an election, or make a major purchase or decision that can potentially affect our family, neighbors, and Church, we should be studiously and prayerfully-minded and seek to be led by God’s Spirit and not merely the admonition of opinionated men. The Spirit of God is able to lead us and guide us into all truth. The Lord is also able to order and guide our steps too.

I know that this post is quite long and I hope that what I said does not offend anyone. I simply hope that we can understand that we live in a fallen world where much of the things around us -- from the attitudes/actions/beliefs of people, storeowners, politicians and even many attitudes from people both in and out of the church -- are evil. May God lead us as we submit to His leading!

Ironically, the term that I have heard was not used by people who plan on making a decision, but as the suggested motivation for those making a decision by others.

---

My experience has been the opposite from yours. I have heard so many who are planing to make a decision tell me this is the reason why they are doing so and have actually had some be upset because I have said I don't understand their reasoning. Oh well go figure.

I have only read about half way through your post but I promise to finish it soon.

rdg

Frank,

Oftentimes men will make long arguments simply to justify their own rationale.

As I pointed out, some people here have been using the "lesser of two evils" insinuation recently on SermonIndex. The insinuation has been raised by you and a couple of others in a few threads that discussed whether a believer can vote for someone like Mitt Romney. Yet, as I pointed out, such an insinuation doesn't fit for how many of us feel. It isn't choosing "the lesser of two evils" as it is simply making a decision about whether or not one man would be better than the other for a four year position.

It is disappointing when believers so sure of their opinions (even if they claim that it is clear from the Word of God) can insinuate that other believers are living in a "world of shadows" or even vacillating because they don't prayerfully reach the same conclusion that others might have on a matter.

The only thing worse than not taking a concrete position on a matter is lying in the "name of Jesus" by publicly proclaiming that their own opinion is God's position on a matter. I have seen believers who pride themselves in their boldness unwittingly fall guilty of declaring what we think is the Lord's mind on a matter declare it as such. There is no room in their words for being wrong. I guess that we can all fall for this unwitting deception.

There are many godly men who may not agree with us on all matters. Yet it is not the place of other members of the Body of Christ to be the accuser of the brethren in matters that aren't decidedly clear from Scripture. If a person accuses an individual of "friendship with the world and its systems" for voting (or even voting for Mitt Romney), then they are also taking upon themselves the responsibility for such a statement. I do wonder if we understand the gravity of our "boldness" -- even when done in ignorance -- if we make declarations that are either incorrect, false, or condescending. We must make sure that our righteousness exceeds the scribes and the Pharisees in such things.

Brother, I encourage you to encourage others. However, I also would caution you to allow the Lord the privilege to lead and guide believers in all such matters. Like it or not, some believers -- including many who frequent SermonIndex -- might choose to vote in this election (and they might vote for Mitt Romney). It is not our place to make any insinuations or proclamations about their motives, goals or intuitiveness to the Spirit of God.

I believe that we should encourage one another to simply and sincerely pray about EVERY decision that we are faced with -- including elections or issues that seem to be one of deciding between matters that some (and just some) would label "the lesser of two evils."

There is no danger in encouraging believers to pray about a matter. I know individuals who don't agree with me on many issues. Some of those individuals disagree with me on issues that I think that can be quite important, even if they might not be essentials to the faith. However, I cherish the fact that they pray over those things...even if no agreement is made. I must always pray that I don't present my views about God ahead of the Word of God -- no matter how clearly that I think I might have received spiritual clarity in the matter through prayer.

May the Lord guide each of us and help us to be sincere with our words and avoid any speech that might not be impure or insinuate the motives in others. We must consider others before ourselves no matter how "right" we think we are.