We will not vote for the “less bloody”

Translation:

When “The Lesser Evil” Becomes the Greatest Betrayal 

We will not vote for the “less bloody” killer.  By Wissam Charafeddine

If someone must die, let it be the “less harmful” option—this is how the logic of “the lesser evil” simplifies moral dilemmas in times of crisis. But what if all options are evil? What if this logic becomes a tool to normalize genocide and political corruption? 

One of the most famous philosophical examples of moral dilemmas is the “trolley problem”: a runaway train will kill five people unless its track is switched to another where one innocent worker will die. Is it morally permissible to sacrifice one to save five? 

This seemingly theoretical question finds itself at the heart of American politics, especially during election seasons, where voters are constantly asked to choose the “lesser evil” between two parties that support wars, turn their backs on international justice, and divide America with crises of poverty, discrimination, and racism. 

Do voters truly have a choice? Or are they merely automatons operating the train, left only to choose the victim? 

### Philosophy Enters the Voting Booth 

In a 2018 paper published in *The Philosophical Quarterly* titled *Justifications for the Lesser Evil: Why Are We Asked to Switch the Track?*, British philosopher Helen Frowe defends what she calls the “commitment thesis.” According to this thesis, those in positions of responsibility to save lives must intervene, even if it causes partial harm, provided it does not grossly violate another’s rights or impose unreasonable costs on the actor. 

However, Frowe carefully distinguishes between justifying harm and turning it into a permanent moral norm. The principle is meant for extreme rescue scenarios, not as a blanket excuse for systematic killing in the name of realism. 

Here lies the critical difference: in American politics, the “lesser evil” principle is used as a perpetual propaganda tool, not an exception. Voters are asked to support a party that backs wars, lest another party—which supports wars even more blatantly—comes to power. This political betrayal is dressed up in the colors of patriotism, fear, and political realism. 

Under Biden’s leadership, the Israeli war machine continues its operations in Gaza and Lebanon, despite reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documenting the widespread use of excessive force against civilians. This has been acknowledged by genuine international organizations as one of the worst genocides in history. 

On the other hand, the Republican Party supports this genocide more loudly and brazenly, with heightened brutality, racism, and a sense of superiority, reveling in the blood of the vulnerable. They justify it under the guise of ideology, religion, and Israel’s right to defend itself. The result? Massacres are committed, and American tax dollars are funneled to arm the killers, while voters are forced to choose between two sides of the same bullet. 

The Green Party: The Excluded Moral Choice 

Amid this deadly dichotomy, the American Green Party emerges as the sole moral voice, systematically excluded from the electoral arena. The party is ethically committed to rejecting funding from major corporations. It calls for an end to all forms of occupation and genocide, advocates for the nationalization of healthcare and education, and strongly opposes all American foreign wars. It condemns the genocide in Gaza and the complicity of the U.S. administration. 

Yet, the media dismisses it as an unrealistic option, bars it from major debates, and denies it public funding—despite its eligibility—simply because it refuses to comply with the corrupt financial and military system controlling political life. 

### Abstention as Political Action 

In this reality, refusing to vote for the two major parties and instead voting for the Green Party—or abstaining—is not withdrawal but a clear moral and political stance. Silence is complicity in murder, even if on a smaller scale. 

Conscientious objection does not mean isolation but a refusal to participate in the farce of false choices. If moral voices are excluded, it is not because they are weak but because they are dangerous to the system—they expose its flaws. 

### Do Not Normalize Genocide 

In the philosophy of “the lesser evil,” you may be asked to decide who dies. But in American politics, the real choice is not between one or five deaths but between being complicit in murder or a witness who refuses to participate in the crime. 

I will not choose a killer, no matter how “lesser” the evil. I will not drive the train of death, even if it is presented as the only solution. I will not submit.