When Facing Great Harm, Why Some People Refuse To Pick The Lesser Of Two Evils
Psychologists tell us why it’s so difficult to convince some people to choose the lesser of two evils — The trolley problem
By David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
My Failure To Get Some People To Choose The Lesser Evil
In 2024 I talked myself blue in the face trying to convince people who admitted to me that it would be a disaster if Donald Trump was elected to vote for Harris as the lesser of two evils.
I got answers from them along the lines:
— “She’s such an empty suit I just can’t make myself vote for her.”
— “But you know that it will either be her or Trump, right?”
— “Of course.”
— “And you know that Trump would be twice as bad for America as Harris, right?”
— “Absolutely, he’s a threat to the country.”
— “So why aren’t you going to vote for Harris in order to avoid the chance that we’ll get Trump?”
— “Ummm, well, I just don’t like her either.”
OK, we aren’t seeing much logic here, but let’s face it, most humans act from emotion, not logic. So, what’s the emotional process that’s at work here?
Psychological Studies RE: ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ Situations
There have been several psychological studies on this issue which have identified several reasons why people refuse to choose the lesser of two evils.
- 1) The “Dirty Hands” Syndrome
If faced with a large immoral choice with terrible consequences and a smaller immoral one with a smaller bad consequence, some people will refuse to choose the less serious option because they believe that they would feel morally responsible, guilty, for inflicting the harm associated with the lesser bad choice.
→ Psychologists have studied this in the so-called “Trolley Problem.”
Subjects are told that a runaway trolley is heading toward five people and that it will surely kill all of them.
The subject is told that s/he is a switch-person who can pull a lever which will divert the trolley to a side track and kill only one person, or s/he can do nothing and all five people will certainly die.
Some subjects refuse to throw the switch (choose the lesser of two evils) because they think they would be less morally responsible (feel less guilt) for the harm caused by not acting (letting the 5 die) and would feel more morally responsible (more guilt) for doing something that caused one person to die.
- 2) “Others Will Blame Me”
A slightly different reason for refusing to choose the lesser evil is the fear of what other people will think of them if they throw the switch.
Get David Grace’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
These subjects feel that others will blame them if they cause a smaller harm by acting (throwing the switch) but those others will not blame them as much if the greater harm happens (five people die) because they did nothing.
They feel that inaction that allows a terrible result does not make them look as guilty/immoral to others as their doing something that causes a bad but less damaging result.
- 3) Refusing To Act Is A Protest
Some people refuse to pick the lesser of two evils because they consider their refusal to act as a protest against the bad situation they have found themselves in without any fault of their own.
They think, “I didn’t cause this situation. I have nothing to do with it. If I act then I am ratifying the situation. I refuse to get involved with it one way or the other. Whatever bad things happen are not on me.”
In their minds, letting the greater evil (five deaths) occur through their inaction is not “on them” because the bad situation (the runaway trolley) was not of their making.
When faced with tough moral trade-offs, these people default to doing nothing because they think that doing nothing frees them from any moral association with the bad situation which they did not create.
The Crucial Element In How The “Do Nothing” People Think
The core idea in the minds of the people who do nothing is the belief that there is an ethical difference between actively causing harm by doing something that causes injury versus passively allowing harm to happen by doing nothing.
— If I throw the switch, I am responsible for someone dying.
— If I do nothing then whatever bad things happen are not my responsibility.
— Action = Moral Responsibility and Guilt
— Inaction = No Moral Responsibility and No Guilt
It’s Not Logic, It’s Emotion
When confronted with a choice of the greater or lesser of two evils many people will close their eyes and imagine that in some alternate universe neither terrible event will occur, that magically, somehow, if they just curl themselves into a fetal ball and ignore the whole thing another alternative will emerge, and that if the prayed-for benign outcome does not materialize that they are not responsible for the catastrophe that takes place because they did not cause the bad situation.
Most people are motivated by emotion, by how they actually feel, not how logic tells them that they should feel.
— David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
