The Lesser of Two Evils: Can we ever cooperate with evil so that good might come?

Everyone alive thinks of themselves, to a certain degree, as a good person.  How could they not?  If we are to believe Aristotle, a person only does something with a view towards some good anyhow: if you are aiming at some good in everything you do and can give an account as to why you are doing something, surely you must be a good, at least blameless, person!  How I wish this were true; my own conscience would sleep better if it were.  Alas, the human condition is not such that we are all good people, nor is it such that a clear divide between good vs. evil exists.  Frequently, we are required to act and support people, actions, or movements that are not free from all immorality.  Many times, the only choices available to us are those that have at least some element of moral transgression present; no matter what we do, we are cooperating to some degree with the evil that will be done.  Typically, in these cases, we continue to protest our own innocence in these actions by asserting that we merely chose the “lesser of two evils.”  But, how effective is this really at preserving our moral convictions?  That is, are we really free to act in a way which endorses the lesser of two evils?  The Catholic Church believes we are - with some crucially necessary qualifications.

In his book, Catholic Bioethics for a New Millennium, Archbishop Anthony Fisher deals at length with the moral permissibility of cooperation with evil.  In order to explore the lengths at which we might knowingly allow evil so that good might come, he describes a controversial solution from recent memory concerning Australia’s 1999 drug epidemic.  In order to reduce overall mortality and as an attempt to get drug-addicted homeless (and their hazardous needles) off the streets, “the Sisters of Charity Health Service in Sydney announced that it would conduct the first legal trial in Australia of a ‘medically supervised’ (or ‘safe’) injecting room for intravenous drug users (p. 80).”  The rational was simple: “since some people are going to take drugs no matter what we do, it is better that they do so in a sterile environment, where needles are not shared and health professionals are on hand to assist after any overdose.”  In short, the determination by the Catholic hospital was made to actively provide the means for engaging in immoral behavior in order to control (and thereby hopefully lessen) the overall evil surrounding drug use that was going to happen anyhow.

To our ears in the waning months of 2024, this solution ought to sound familiar.  It is the exact same rational used to condone many evils: “comprehensive healthcare (which is really contraception, invasive sex education, abortion, bodily mutilation, etc),” drug use, and theft, to name just a few.  These things are going to happen anyway, goes the rationale, so why not limit the overall evil caused by these actions by cooperating with it: making it safer and providing people the opportunity to do it right.  And, on the surface, this solution might seem licit: do nothing and cooperate in evil by leaving our brothers and sisters in their plight.  At least by cooperating with evil this way, some tangible good (and hopefully decrease in evil) will come about.  Unfortunately, this is not how the Church sees it.

The solution of the SCHS was brought to the Vatican for comment.  And, though it was not received with welcome, the Vatican denounced this solution as morally reprehensible.  The most basic precept of cooperating with evil is that you yourself must not actively do evil.  You cannot do evil or actively cause others to be able to do it, and remain blameless.  By providing the setting for drug use, the Vatican determined that this hospital was actively doing evil and was participating in, not cooperating with, the sin of those using it.  This condemnation equally applies to those controversial solutions with similar rational of today.

Not doing evil is not the only requirement of cooperating with evil, however.  Scandal, or the possibility of giving scandal, is also an evil to be avoided.  In other words, not only must you avoid doing the actual evil thing, but you must also avoid any appearance to others that you approve, condone, or otherwise are ok with the evil actions.  In fact, you must actively try to stop the evil done.  Thus, for example, it would be morally licit to vote for a candidate or complex amendment who supports one or another evil, but only if 1) the good done by the thing at hand outweighs the evil, 2) the thing at hand does not actively do evil, and 3) you (or the candidate) has already and continues to vocally oppose the evil that is being allowed, and clearly communicates to all his vehement opposition.  Within this framework, we faithful to the Church may materially cooperate with evil in order that the desired good might come about.

There are so many social problems in our world today: human right to life issues, racism, irresponsible harvesting of earth’s resources, homelessness, rampant drug use - the list is virtually endless.  We Catholics cannot do nothing; we must tackle these hard issues, and engage in good-faith discussions about how to solve them.  While many agree at the core evil of these issues, the controversial discussions erupt surrounding how or who will fix these problems.  Almost certainly, the only options which will ever be available to us are those which allow some evil so that another good may come about.  Alas!  Our hand is inevitably forced, and sooner or later we will be convicted of cooperating with some evil.  If we remain within the framework the Church lays out, we can remain blameless.