Eyes wide open

Eyes wide open 

A moral dilemma: 

The year is 2258, and space travel is now a made reality. After decades of extensive quantum trail-and-error scientists have finally obtained the necessary means to materialise Sinatra's "Fly Me To The Moon". As is human, space exploration was immediately commercialized, and soon after mining industries discovered impossible ores rich with life-extending properties. Human decay is now a record snail's pace, and cause-to-effect gives rise to overpopulation. Without much livable space left, demographic culling was in motion - cringey TikTokers and self-righteous activists were the first to go... obviously. But as man mass continue to compress the mud planet, a cynical proposal was birthed. 

Convicts will be executed, and prisons converted into makeshift housing. Dubbed "The lesser evil", the thought of exterminating millions was tattooed with controversy. Killing millions to save billions can be argued as a flawed perspective, but some chose to glorify this purge and claim that this was, in fact, the lesser evil.

To me, immorality makes no difference. Or at least to a certain extend. Lesser, greater or middling, its very form remains identical, and having to choose between one evil or another is a choice i'd rather not make at all. Murder, from an ethical perspective, is far wicked compared to stealing candy from a baby but breakdown both scenarios and fundamentally, an equally repulsive stench wafts through. Is it then even right for us to constantly lay contrast to these acts, and are we merely blinding ourselves with timid justifications for different evil acts to make our lives a little easier. 

See the word does not sit right with me. Justification. It implies that the desired choice we have committed to can be claimed as wrongful when in actuality, I believe its not the case at all. Not referencing the Covid-19 pandemic here for that episode was genuinely disheartening left a distraught mark in humanity's wheel of time, but say you knew patient zero of an even deadlier infection that has now contacted a small village in the heart of a metropolis. Due to its highly contagious nature, the WHO has decided to encase the community in a massive glass dome with strict access points to facilitate the transport of goods, food and other essentials. 

Trapping thousands to save the world. The math checks out, and so from a quantitative perspective it seems like a no-brainer. But from a "moral" standpoint this act eradicates the very essence of humanity, leaving only epizootic mammals exhibited for public display. See when it comes down to the wire in these impossible situations, there is no trace of a lesser evil. Both are sinister. Both are benevolent. There is no lesser or greater here. 

Wait but hollup. If both are flirting on the brink of neutrality, doesn't that drain the choices of any significance or magnitude, only to impregnate the made decision with the unwanted burden of commitment? Going back to the thought experiment, the implications of exterminating all convicts or not has no real repercussions before the choice has been chiseled in stone because they are all hypothetical. The infinite imagination of an overthinker. I hate the finality of it. I loathe dwelling on a dilemma and weighing out its pros and cons knowing that it eventually succumbs to nothing once I dedicate to a decision. The sudden rush of pressure engulfs, swallowing and destructing. Regret and doubt soon follows. Left to divulge in self-blame. Stupid decision making!

Methods to this madness, an eternal banquet of choices continue feeding indecisive humans. While some abide to their personal beliefs and religious values, dizzy sheeples devote their lives to corrupt lifestyles. More emotive characters follow the innocent melody of heartstrings, juxtaposed by their analytical cousins that prefer the impactful silence of neuro-impulses. Personally my daily verdicts are fueled by happiness; so long as joy is harvested from said decision I remain a happy and firm farmer, no matter how many criminals I need to slaughter. 

This brings me back to the thought-provoking concept at hand. The phrase "for the greater good" gets tossed around excessively, which is strange when you consider its means of meaning. I would think marketing said justification as the "for the lesser evil" would serve a more objective message for its audience. The former implies that committing sin is vindicated so long as it satisfies human interest, while the philantropistic essence of the latter aims to reduce any wickedness even if it means neglecting the community. 

This conscious choice to lace one's tongue with these words speak volumes about the very state of humanity, salt to mankind's wound considering the idea was birthed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the early 1800s. "The greater good for the greatest number", a principle that since popularized immensely. Not to be cynical, but the conscious choice to voice those words gives a glimpse into the very fundamentals of humanity, and perhaps its real, raw and ugly nature. 

I think it is reasonable to believe in the lesser evil if it helps dictate your way of living. With an ambiguous basis, it can be argued justifiable and is also far more respectable compared to blindly following trendy decisions and faceless lifestyles. Empty husks on salt mountain. Just that personally, I feel that the desire to compare wickedness is beyond foolish, and attempting to implement any measuring system is futile. Evil grows by the day. Intangible. Lurking in the shadows. 

And the pale moonlight unravels these sinners, and the blinding glare of justice engulfs the being. Lives disrupted, loss consumes, a mother gives birth. There are only opportunities in this finite space. Commit and regret nothing. Choices are the hinges of destiny. There are only right decisions, no matter the outcome. 

Bridges burn, tables turn, we move on and learn. Thanks Panda. 

- Molly