How much evil we must do in order to do good

How much evil we must do in order to do good
—————————

Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr was an American theologian, Professor at the Union theological seminary and public intellectual.
He died 1971.

He lived long enough to observe the momentous events of his time, particularly some of the evil done by the powerful as the latter claims to chase a larger good.
In the end he was forced to ask
“ how much evil must we do in order to do good “

La plus ca change la plus c’est la meme chose

The period of the world wars revealed how so much evil was done by so many parties to the conflict with the excuse of necessary evil in the pursuit of broader good .

Little seems to have changed .

Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine philosopher argued that the End justifies the Means.

The Machiavellian premise endorses any means that leads to a good end.

But there are ethicists who argue with equal eloquence that a point can come in the pursuit of a good whereby the means adopted can be so corrupt they also corrupt the very good to be attained.
In other words corrupt MEANS can come to corrupt FAIR ENDS.

Many world powers have had difficult struggles with these issues.

To whst extent should a United States for instance be working partners with oppressive regimes around the world or stand as obstacles to good but unfriendly ones in the name of greater set of values that America deems good and of greater benefit to its own security and the larger world.

To whst extent can opposites ( evil and good ) work together for good.

In the Trolley Dillema, a bystander is faced with saving five persons versus save one . See below.
;;

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

Advertisement

Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

These are recurrent dillemmas in our world in which good hardly ever stands clear of evil .

In the Gaza – Israeli debacle, the various powers ( including Israel ) who can effectively end the war find themselves bound up in various philosophical models that effectively lead to Paralysis by Analysis.

But the basic question remains

How much evil must Israel do in order to achieve the good it seeks.

Biden has decided that as much evil as is needed to defend itself.

How much evil must Hamas do in order to secure the good it seeks.

Supporters of Palestinian liberation argue that the end trumps the means and until that end is met, Hamas cannot and should not be vilified.

And so evil continues.

But a two state solution unacceptable to Israel (for reasons valid to it and perhaps to
It only ) resembles the option available to the bystander in the Trolley Dilemma ( above ) where lesser evil is wrought by Two state than No state .

If as we see over and over that the path to any good is littered with evil but if as we must the amount of evil necessary in the pursuit of good must be limited to as little as possible, it is the moral obligation of the entire world ; Arab or non Arab, Christian, Muslim or Neither, Jews or Gentiles to pursue the path of lesser evil and hew towards Palestinian sovereign state.

To do different is to accede to Israeli means so corrupt it is bound to corrupt any good that may lie ahead.

Basil jide fadipe. Justin fadipe Centre.

Share this: