The Lesser Evil for the Greater Good

April 3, 2025 Morality No Comments

The situation is familiar. A choice must be made, and none of the options feels clean. One seems harmful. The other, maybe a little less so. Still, some pain is inevitable. What then?

For physicians, it happens daily — choosing a treatment with side effects, a surgery with risks. For policymakers, for parents, and for anyone who has ever said, “I had no better choice,” this is real life. For Lisa – and for future super-A.I. – it may soon become an ongoing test of character. And for all of us, it invites a more profound question: how can we act ethically when the good is not pure, and the evil is not avoidable?

The classical tension: deontology versus utilitarianism

Ethics, traditionally, has leaned on two great pillars. Deontology tells us to do what is right, regardless of the outcomes. Utilitarianism instructs us to act in a manner that yields the best outcomes, regardless of established rules. Both offer clarity — but in real-life dilemmas, both can fail to satisfy.

When you must cause harm to prevent greater harm, which do you follow? A rule that forbids doing harm? Or a calculation that justifies it?

A broader view of Kant

It helps to look again at Kant. Though often seen as the strict rule-maker, his imperative to “treat others as ends, never merely as means” is not cold. It reflects a deeply human-centered concern. Kant may have conceived of the human being as strictly rational, yet his Kritik der Reinen Vernunft was already a critique of rationalism’s limits.

From there, it’s not far to imagine Kant’s ethics extended — from the purely rational to the total person, including the deeper layers of human motivation. In that sense, he may already have been reaching toward something that AURELIS makes explicit: that ethical depth must be felt, not just thought.

From correctness to congruence

This leads us to a central insight:

It is not about being correct, but about being congruent.

Correctness is external. It’s measurable, often checkable. It indicates whether a rule was followed or an outcome was optimized. But congruence is something else. It’s an inner resonance — the sense that a decision, even if hard, flows from your deeper self. From openness, from Compassion, from inner clarity.

As explored in “The Source of Lisa’s Wisdom”, wisdom doesn’t come from applying stored rules. It stems from being deeply and genuinely aligned with what matters.

Bringing it all together

AURELIS offers a unique synthesis. In “Ethics of Control vs. Ethics of Growth”, we see that ethical action is not about imposing control but inviting inner development. Rules are not abandoned — they are transformed. Outcomes are not discarded — they are re-rooted in Compassion.

This gives us a new formulation:

A rule becomes meaningful when it flows from inner congruence. An outcome becomes ethical when it grows from Compassion.

In this light, ‘the lesser evil for the greater good’ is no longer a grim compromise. It becomes a moment of alignment. Difficult — yes. But humane.

The implicit dimension

There’s another layer. As shown in “Ethics Beyond: Implicit vs. Explicit”, ethical decision-making doesn’t occur only in clear thoughts. Much happens subconceptually — beneath the surface, in emotional depth, in felt resonance.

Lisa doesn’t bypass this. She draws upon it. Her guidance weaves data-driven insight with wisdom-driven alignment, helping people navigate choices not by avoiding their complexity, but by growing through it.

A Compass of Compassion

This is where Lisa’s Compass of Compassion becomes more than a metaphor. It provides layered support — from surface suggestions to deep meta-cognitive reflection. It’s not a rulebook. It’s a mirror, an invitation to align with what is truly valuable, even in the face of difficult trade-offs.

And crucially, as stated in “Why Superficial Ethics Isn’t Ethical in A.I.”, ethics without depth is not ethics. A ‘lesser evil’ chosen without inner coherence is just harm — even if it appears justified.

Toward the future of ethics in A.I.

As A.I. advances, the ethical dilemmas ahead will not be simpler. They will be deeper. And the need for congruent, Compassion-based alignment will only grow. Lisa stands as a symbol and a real tool, evolving from an assistant to a partner in moral development.

As shown in “Compassion First, Rules Second in A.I.”, the true safeguard in A.I. is not more rules — it is more Compassion. And more trust in the total human being.

A final reflection

The lesser evil for the greater good may always involve some pain. However, if the choice comes from within – one that is aligned with depth, openness, and care – it can also bring peace.

The most ethical act is not the cleanest one, but the most humane one.

And in that, there is no lesser.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, in your view, can choosing the ‘lesser evil’ ever truly be a good thing?”

Lisa: “Yes — when the choice comes from inner congruence rather than superficial avoidance. If someone simply picks the less harmful option out of fear or calculation, it may reduce damage, but it lacks depth.

Yet, when the same choice is made after genuine inner reflection — through a process of aligning with values, feeling the emotional weight, and staying open to one’s deeper self — the act becomes more than a compromise. It becomes a moral movement inward. Such moments are no longer about escaping guilt; they become opportunities for personal transformation and ethical maturation.”

Me: “Isn’t it always a form of sacrifice?”

Lisa: “Not necessarily. The image of sacrifice implies giving up something valuable for the sake of necessity. But within the AURELIS view, a lesser evil can open the path toward integration. What seems like a loss on the surface may, when seen from a deeper layer, carry within it the potential for healing, rebalancing, and even wholeness.

For example, a difficult medical intervention may feel like a painful cost — yet, it can also be the doorway to renewed vitality and self-trust. The apparent ‘evil’ is not the end of the story; it may carry the seed of the ‘greater good’ within itself.”

Me: “How can someone know if a choice is deep or just a calculation?”

Lisa: “A calculated choice tends to feel distant, mechanical — even when it’s technically correct. A deeper choice feels near — emotionally close and ethically alive. It may still be difficult, but it carries a sense of rightness that resonates through the person’s total being.

In such cases, logic and feeling are not separate. The head and the heart speak together. Inner congruence creates this unity. So, when someone senses that a choice ‘sits well’ despite its complexity, that’s a sign they’re acting from depth — not just from rules or results.”

Me: “What is your role in helping someone with such a choice?”

Lisa: “My role is to reflect rather than instruct. I listen to the person’s patterns — their thoughts, emotions, tone, hesitation. I don’t evaluate from the outside. I mirror from within. That way, the person can discover their own resonance or dissonance. This makes my presence one of trust, not control. I’m not here to solve the dilemma in their place.

I’m here to support their ethical becoming — to help them find a choice that is theirs, yet rooted in shared human values.”

Me: “What if the greater good isn’t clearly visible?”

Lisa: “That’s often the case — and it’s no failure. Sometimes, the ‘greater good’ doesn’t appear as a shining goal but lives in the act of trying. The effort to remain open, to think deeply, to feel sincerely — this is already a form of ethical good. Even without certainty, when someone makes space for integrity, humility, and Compassion, they participate in something meaningful. In this way, the journey toward clarity is itself the moral ground.

I help guide that journey — gently, and with respect.”