Is it OK to Choose the Lesser of Two Evils? (The Parable of the Two Giants and Their Slaves)

Many of my friends are surprised when they learn that I often vote for a third candidate in a “two party race” election.  They inform me that I “threw away my vote” because there is no chance my candidate will win, and they believe it is better to choose the lesser of two evils. Hyrum Smith said:

“We engage in the election the same as in any other principle; you are to vote for good men, and if you do not do this it is a sin; to vote for wicked men, it would be sin. Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs. Damn the rod of tyranny; curse it. Let every man use his liberties according to the constitution. Don’t fear man or devil; electioneer with all people, male and female, and exhort them to do the thing that is right. We want a President of the U.S., not a party President, but a President of the whole people; for a party President disfranchises the opposite party. Have a President who will maintain every man in his rights.” [History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.15, p.323]

We have far too few political candidates that really understand the correct principles of our constitutional, representative democracy. I feel sick when I consider voting for a candidate that makes me compromise too far because they would further threaten our liberty and promote using the force of government in unjustified, immoral ways. A “third party” or independent candidate generally knows they have almost no chance of winning, but they stay in the race because by doing so they help educate the public on correct government principles. I support that! The fact that we have to choose one of two bad options tells me that we need to be much more concerned about educating the public on morality and the proper role of government.

After discussion with my friends about fundamental principles of government, they often find that they mostly agree with me on principle. Upon further consideration, however, they make the rash assumption that the candidate I voted for would make these changes overnight, and they worry about voting for them because such sudden changes might cause chaos. I explain that the candidate isn’t saying that we should change everything overnight, they’re just telling us which direction to start moving towards rather than encouraging us to keep moving in the wrong direction, no matter how fast or slow.  The candidate’s positions may appear extreme, but this is usually because they are one of the few that actually want to move us in the right direction while the others support certain forms of socialism.

These conversations have caused me to ponder about how awesome it would be if we were faced with the dilemma of choosing between the greater of two goods on Election Day. Instead of having to choose between two final candidates who are debating over which rights to chip away at, so that we can move closer to socialism without infringing upon too many rights too fast, we would get to choose between two final candidates who are debating over which rights to restore in what order, and how fast to proceed, so that we can move closer to liberty while maintaining order.

To those who are faced with the dilemma of having to choose between the lesser of two evils, I present the following:

 

The Parable of the Two Giants and Their Slaves

Two giants captured two human slaves and each became a master to one slave. One day both giants became hungry. While discussing how to best obtain a meal, they couldn’t decide whether it would be better to steal some neighbors’ cows, which would cause pain to their neighbors, or to just kill and eat the neighbors. Each decided to let his own slave determine his action.

The first slave realized that his master would refuse any other option, so he told his master to steal a cow, for he knew stealing was less evil than murder and didn’t want the greater evil to be chosen. The second slave refused to support any evil so he suggested a third option: to spend time hunting a wild beast and eat that. The second master mocked his slave and went and ate a neighbor.

Afterwards, the first slave just went about his master’s duties, while the second slave began to teach his master about morality as he went about his duties.

After a long while the masters became hungry again. The first master, who hadn’t progressed at all, presented his slave with the same options as before. However, the second master, who now had a basic understanding of self-reliance, asked his slave whether he should spend time hunting beasts or developing a farm which would produce both meat and produce. The second slave pondered about his master’s capabilities and what his master could reasonably do without giving in to frustration, and made his decision. He was then promoted from slave to advisor.

Moral of the story: when forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, the greater evil is to do nothing until your next choice.

“We are involved in an intense battle. It is a battle between right and wrong, between truth and error, between the design of the Almighty on the one hand and that of Lucifer on the other. For that reason, we desperately need moral men and women who stand on principle, to be involved in the political process. Otherwise, we abdicate power to those whose designs are almost entirely selfish.” [Gordon B. Hinckley, Stand a little Taller, pg. 15, July 2001]

 

Appendix: Interpretation of the Parable

 

Giants = Constitutional, representative democracies that had degenerated into immoral, direct democracies

Slaves = Us

Slaves decision on their masters’ meal = Voting booth

1st slave’s vote = He who votes for the lesser of two evils, reasoning that not voting for either may result in the worst outcome

2nd slave’s vote = He who votes for a third option, refusing to encourage any evil but realizing that in the short-term this may result in the worst outcome

1st slave just doing duties = He who is frustrated with two bad options, and zones out politics until the next election

2nd slave teaching morality = He who realizes that he must help educate society on correct government principles

A long while = Many elections passing

Later vote for 1st slave = Same perpetual moral dilemma: which is the lesser of two evils?

Later vote for 2nd slave = Better moral dilemma: which is the greater of two goods? Should the option with the most protection of rights be chosen, or do we need to proceed a little slower to make sure that we don’t run faster than we are able?

2nd slave’s promotion to advisor = When society is educated enough to put forth two principled candidates that support liberty, we will feel more like an advisor than a slave to our government system

About Johnny Hardy

Johnny Hardy is passionate about Christianity, science, and politics, and especially the areas that they overlap, which has caused some friends to call him "Johnny Liberty". He has a wonderful wife and so far is the father of one amazing son. He earned a PhD in engineering and currently works in the medical field.
This entry was posted in Articles and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is it OK to Choose the Lesser of Two Evils? (The Parable of the Two Giants and Their Slaves)

  1. Pingback: Is it OK to Choose the Lesser of Two Evils? (The Parable of the Two Giants and Their Slaves) by Johnny Hardy | LDS Liberty

  2. Kevin Brown says:

    The flaw I see in your reasoning is that voting for third parties will eventually lead to having only principled candidates that support liberty to choose between at the voting booth. I see no reason to assume that educating others will automatically and without question lead to this outcome. I agree that education is a worth while endeavor but I don’t agree that this necessarily lead to only principled candidates. Individuals still have there agency and no matter how much we educate others a majority still might reject liberty. In short there is no evidence that voting for third parties will accomplish your goals.

    • Johnny Hardy says:

      Kevin,

      You misunderstand my parable. The message is not that voting itself will lead to having a principled candidate. The message is that educating others on the principles of liberty is how we will move in this direction, and voting for a principled candidate is a way to educate as you will have opportunities to explain to others why you voted that way plus you are directly supporting an educator.

      There are areas where educating is putting principled leaders in place–a district in Texas continues to vote in Ron Paul; Kentucky has voted in Rand Paul. Although these representatives aren’t perfect, I think they for the most part want to move government the right direction. Are you familiar with the Free State Project (JC can tell you all about that). I think there are promising national trends, as some polls show Ron Paul would have a fighting chance against Obama if he was the Republican nominee. There is a growing population of libertarians and tea party members.

      I also believe that during the second coming, there will be a whole lot of education on properly understanding rights–and it will come to a point where if there was a vote, people would put in a principled candidate at a head of a nation.

  3. ChevalierdeJohnstone says:

    A further flaw in the argument is that you explicitly accept slavery and you legitimate the presumed authority of the giant (direct democracy) in contrast to the divine and absolute law of God which demands that all men are individually free and sovereign. Your parable is materialist and amoral, being concerned only with how to achieve your personal goals as opposed to living by God’s commandments. The moral course of action would be to reject slavery and resist the tyrannical giants, even if it means your death, trusting in faithful adherence to God’s commandments.

    It’s more than a little disconcerting to see a blog called “LDS Liberty” accepting (if not condoning) slavery and suggesting temporal solutions to problems of social morality more properly entrusted to Providence.

    • Johnny Hardy says:

      “You explicitly accept slavery and you legitimate the presumed authority of the giant (direct democracy)”

      No I don’t–where do I say slavery is acceptable? If I “explicitly” say these things, show me the exact quote!

      Even though the US was built on correct principles, we have degraded closer to a “control of majority vote”. In a sense, this is the state we are currently in. Do you disagree? I don’t know anywhere you currently could move on earth (except maybe Antartica or uninhabitable desserts) where you wouldn’t be subjected (and therefore a “slave” so to speak) to a “rule of the majority” or an even worse tyranny.

      Under what current earthly government can you escape this? Seriously, let me know–I want to move there! (assuming it’s inhabitable…)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>