Fallacy of the lesser evil? My response
(Published in the Inquirer yesterday was a letter written by Mr. Michael Francis Ean Vega II. Below is my response to it. I am not sure PDI will print it, but given my experience with that paper, I very much doubt it).
This is in response to the letter of Mr. Michael Francis Ean Vega II ("Fallacy of the lesser evil," PDI, 4/8/06). I thank Mr. Vega for widening the contours of the debate beyond the name-calling and class generalizations, and in a civilized way. Although he finds my kind of reasoning lamentable and calls me a pragmatist (*grin*), these descriptions are an improvement over the savage name-calling others have indulged in. I am grateful because I truly think that there is space for courteous exchanges of divergent opinions even in these troubling times and Mr. Vega has just proven that. Perhaps it is time to remind everyone our there that just because we disagree we are not necessarily enemies. Perhaps it is time to bring the discussion to a higher level without losing sight of the fact that we are in this together.
Mr. Vega anchors his reaction to my letter on the premise that there is an evil that needs to be fought and fighting that evil is the moral thing to do. I cannot disagree with him on this assertion, for who in his right mind would argue that evil needs to be fought?
But here is where our perspectives diverge: I refuse to be selective and exclusive on what, and who is evil; or more evil for that matter. Unlike Mr. Vega, I think the evils that plague our nation must not and can not be limited to, and are therefore beyond, GMA et al. I did not raise this specter of who is the greater or lesser of evils in that letter, that letter points out that GMA can not just be the only "issue" here. Thus, I refuse to give in to the temptation to take part in efforts to repeat the same rush to render moral judgment that have only yielded temporary victories in the past but for which we continue to pay for dearly today.
At the root of the issue is the claim that has been repeatedly pointed out to me by well-meaning individuals that by giving GMA "conditioned and temporary" support (because of my avowed adherence to democratic and constitutional processes), I am allowing myself to be used to further perpetuate evil. I find this argument to be a double-edged sword because the reverse happens to be also true: by focusing on the most convenient evil (i.e., GMA), there is also consequent implicit approbation of the other "evils."
This is the problem with situating issues at extreme ends of only one continuum, choosing one option repudiates the other. Thus, I cannot be blind to the fact that in this whole rush to judgment, the perpetrators of past injustices have similarly cloaked themselves with the same armor of righteousness that is being invoked to supposedly cleanse our country of immorality. I refuse to be blind to the fact that in this whole rush to judgment, everything else that shows promise in this country is being held hostage: economic growth, peace and order, etc. By demonizing only one person and making her the central – nay, the only issue - negates recognition and discussion of the other evils. How can this be moral?
Unlike Mr. Vega, I do not necessarily think that our problems as a people is as simple as choosing between just two evils because as I said, I refuse to limit my list of evils to GMA and the other politicians. My list would be much longer and would include hatred, intolerance, duplicity, hypocrisy, poverty, sabotage, apathy, greed, etc. These are far more insidious evils. This is the context in which that open letter was written.
I also get Mr. Vega’s point: wrong is wrong and right is right. But I do not buy the offered solution: to go to the streets as we did in Edsa Dos. Not because I refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing when I see it, but precisely because I do not see how something wrong can be corrected by doing something wrong. I am also deeply concerned about morality issues, but I choose to take the higher moral ground in addressing immorality. How can democracy be salvaged through undemocratic processes? How can immorality be corrected by committing immorality as well? To do so would be to go down to the level of the so-called evils.
I have said this in that letter and in the many rejoinders I have written in my blog and I will say it again here: I also do not like GMA. I do not begrudge people who want her out. Go ahead, I will not stand in your way. But we must as a people learn how to do this right – the legal, the democratic, the proper, the civilized way – so that our children need not be saddled anymore with the weight of having to grapple with the task of undoing the mistakes we have committed in the past and are tempted to commit again today. Kicking corrupt leaders out of power has become easy, but correcting the system has become far more elusive in the long run. This vicious cycle has got to stop.
I agree with Mr. Vega 101%: Filipinos deserve better. But I would like to think that this quest to provide Filipinos something better is not only limited to our choices in who sits in Malacanang, but also in the way we elect and evict him or her. I would like to think that the legacy that we want to leave behind is not just limited to the quality of the people whose portraits line the hallways of power, but also in the strength of our nation’s processes, how we do things. Leaders come and go, but the strength of our systems determines our destiny as a people.
Like Mr. Vega, I agree that vigilance is the only way to go, which is why I wrote that letter and why I continue to keep my voice heard despite the many risks attendant to maintaining an allegedly "immoral" stand. So you see Mr. Vega, my perspective is clearly more than just about whether to keeep Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in power or not. Like you, I want to fight evil. But I choose to fight it differently.
Bong Austero
This is in response to the letter of Mr. Michael Francis Ean Vega II ("Fallacy of the lesser evil," PDI, 4/8/06). I thank Mr. Vega for widening the contours of the debate beyond the name-calling and class generalizations, and in a civilized way. Although he finds my kind of reasoning lamentable and calls me a pragmatist (*grin*), these descriptions are an improvement over the savage name-calling others have indulged in. I am grateful because I truly think that there is space for courteous exchanges of divergent opinions even in these troubling times and Mr. Vega has just proven that. Perhaps it is time to remind everyone our there that just because we disagree we are not necessarily enemies. Perhaps it is time to bring the discussion to a higher level without losing sight of the fact that we are in this together.
Mr. Vega anchors his reaction to my letter on the premise that there is an evil that needs to be fought and fighting that evil is the moral thing to do. I cannot disagree with him on this assertion, for who in his right mind would argue that evil needs to be fought?
But here is where our perspectives diverge: I refuse to be selective and exclusive on what, and who is evil; or more evil for that matter. Unlike Mr. Vega, I think the evils that plague our nation must not and can not be limited to, and are therefore beyond, GMA et al. I did not raise this specter of who is the greater or lesser of evils in that letter, that letter points out that GMA can not just be the only "issue" here. Thus, I refuse to give in to the temptation to take part in efforts to repeat the same rush to render moral judgment that have only yielded temporary victories in the past but for which we continue to pay for dearly today.
At the root of the issue is the claim that has been repeatedly pointed out to me by well-meaning individuals that by giving GMA "conditioned and temporary" support (because of my avowed adherence to democratic and constitutional processes), I am allowing myself to be used to further perpetuate evil. I find this argument to be a double-edged sword because the reverse happens to be also true: by focusing on the most convenient evil (i.e., GMA), there is also consequent implicit approbation of the other "evils."
This is the problem with situating issues at extreme ends of only one continuum, choosing one option repudiates the other. Thus, I cannot be blind to the fact that in this whole rush to judgment, the perpetrators of past injustices have similarly cloaked themselves with the same armor of righteousness that is being invoked to supposedly cleanse our country of immorality. I refuse to be blind to the fact that in this whole rush to judgment, everything else that shows promise in this country is being held hostage: economic growth, peace and order, etc. By demonizing only one person and making her the central – nay, the only issue - negates recognition and discussion of the other evils. How can this be moral?
Unlike Mr. Vega, I do not necessarily think that our problems as a people is as simple as choosing between just two evils because as I said, I refuse to limit my list of evils to GMA and the other politicians. My list would be much longer and would include hatred, intolerance, duplicity, hypocrisy, poverty, sabotage, apathy, greed, etc. These are far more insidious evils. This is the context in which that open letter was written.
I also get Mr. Vega’s point: wrong is wrong and right is right. But I do not buy the offered solution: to go to the streets as we did in Edsa Dos. Not because I refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing when I see it, but precisely because I do not see how something wrong can be corrected by doing something wrong. I am also deeply concerned about morality issues, but I choose to take the higher moral ground in addressing immorality. How can democracy be salvaged through undemocratic processes? How can immorality be corrected by committing immorality as well? To do so would be to go down to the level of the so-called evils.
I have said this in that letter and in the many rejoinders I have written in my blog and I will say it again here: I also do not like GMA. I do not begrudge people who want her out. Go ahead, I will not stand in your way. But we must as a people learn how to do this right – the legal, the democratic, the proper, the civilized way – so that our children need not be saddled anymore with the weight of having to grapple with the task of undoing the mistakes we have committed in the past and are tempted to commit again today. Kicking corrupt leaders out of power has become easy, but correcting the system has become far more elusive in the long run. This vicious cycle has got to stop.
I agree with Mr. Vega 101%: Filipinos deserve better. But I would like to think that this quest to provide Filipinos something better is not only limited to our choices in who sits in Malacanang, but also in the way we elect and evict him or her. I would like to think that the legacy that we want to leave behind is not just limited to the quality of the people whose portraits line the hallways of power, but also in the strength of our nation’s processes, how we do things. Leaders come and go, but the strength of our systems determines our destiny as a people.
Like Mr. Vega, I agree that vigilance is the only way to go, which is why I wrote that letter and why I continue to keep my voice heard despite the many risks attendant to maintaining an allegedly "immoral" stand. So you see Mr. Vega, my perspective is clearly more than just about whether to keeep Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in power or not. Like you, I want to fight evil. But I choose to fight it differently.
Bong Austero
Comments
Mr. David in fact has discovered for himself that protesters are being paid to be with him or Mr. Vega in the streets. So what is so noble about it?
i was honestly surprised to have my comment published by the inquirer. (my only request from them was to send it to david and de quiros. but anyway, what's done is done. in retrospect, it was probably silly to think that they'd not publish it). anyway, as i only get to check the inquirer online, and very rarely do i get to read all of it, i only realized this when i started getting mysterious emails that either praised or cursed me for an article i'd apparently written. (perhaps this is something you know far too well!)
as my name has suddenly been appearing much too often for me to be comfortable, i would appreciate it if you could post my "actual" comment in your blog space. if for anything -- to spare me the indignation of your rabid fans. i am reluctant to start one myself, being much too selfish of my time. the inquirer changed and removed much of it -- they even gave it a title! (i might have sent them a slightly different version from this one, which is what i sent to my egroup as soon as i read you open letter). but i still think the published version missed a really important point.
another thing, my reaction was written against what i specifically read (or inferred) from your letter. specifically, the sense of your recent response to mine is NOT in the original:
"....I am also deeply concerned about morality issues, but I choose to take the higher moral ground in addressing immorality. How can democracy be salvaged through undemocratic processes? How can immorality be corrected by committing immorality as well? To do so would be to go down to the level of the so-called evils.
I have said this in that letter and in the many rejoinders I have written in my blog and I will say it again here: I also do not like GMA. I do not begrudge people who want her out. Go ahead, I will not stand in your way. But we must as a people learn how to do this right – the legal, the democratic, the proper, the civilized way – so that our children need not be saddled anymore with the weight of having to grapple with the task of undoing the mistakes we have committed in the past and are tempted to commit again today. Kicking corrupt leaders out of power has become easy, but correcting the system has become far more elusive in the long run. This vicious cycle has got to stop."
again, this was NOT what you were saying back then. (and i've not read any of your rejoinders, unfortunately). if your original letter was written as sensibly (and calmly) as this, i probably would've been irked considerably
less (even if i still might have disagreed). (in writing "How can immorality be corrected by committing immorality as well? To do so would be to go down to the level of the so-called evils" though, would you have said the same thing about the fight against marcos?)
now on some of your points. first, you say:
"Unlike Mr. Vega, I think the evils that plague our nation must not and can not be limited to, and are therefore beyond, GMA et al."
yes, i completely agree. but my point is that if she's one of these problems then we must address her head-on as well. doing so does not "limit" the issue to GMA, but acknowledges her to be part of it.
you also write:
"I did not raise this specter of who is the greater or lesser of evils in that letter, that letter points out that GMA can not just be the only "issue" here."
but you most certainly DID! the last three-quarters of your letter was a big rant against those who were leading the rally. your letter was literally screaming that these leaders were scum, and that GMA was a safer, cleaner choice. how else is one supposed to read what you wrote?
and finally, you write:
"Thus, I refuse to give in to the temptation to take part in efforts to repeat the same rush to render moral judgment that have only yielded temporary victories in the past but for which we continue to pay for dearly today."
i'm sure you understand that "rendering moral judgment" was not what led to our "temporary victories", but our lack of vigilance afterwards. that our institutions never strengthened after the two EDSAs was the result of our short-sightedness, our naivete in thinking that with a different central character, everything would just iron itself out. these mistakes though should not stop us from fighting again, if only for the possibility that we might just get it right the third time around.
oh well, here's the un-edited (and perhaps really unpolished) version of what i really wrote:
************************************************************************************
I truly understand this guy's anger. And I do like that he seems to be
genuinely concerned for the country. I'll certainly take any kind of
reaction over apathy, even if it goes against mine. But still, I shake
my head lamentably to the kind of logic you'll find here.
As the letter is also addressed to me (leftist and bleeding heart),
perhaps you'll allow me to indulge an aching need to reply.
The guy is a pragmatist. His argument is one that many very sensible
people share, but is nevertheless one that I can't quite accept. Their
standard battlecry is this: We must always pick the lesser of evils. It is
time to move on and focus instead on the work that needs to be done. We
must forgive, just as we have forgiven before.
Yes, I get it. But I don't buy it. So if asked if whether I’d protest
alongside Randy David and the rest of the bleeding hearts, I'd say
I would. But this is NOT because I choose the greater evil. It's certainly
NOT because I don't want to move on, nor because I don't see the work
that lies ahead. And it is certainly NOT because I can't forgive.
The fight must be there because there's an evil to be fought. And if
that's defeated, and a greater evil comes along, then we ought to fight
that again. That's called vigilance, and that's the only thing that
combats the greater dangers of "sige-na-lang" or "bahala na". This is the
only attitude that will keep politics in our country from becoming a
bigger joke than it already is. If we're lucky, then perhaps eventually
the right one will come along, and then another one, and another. But this
kind of luck will never arrive if we just shrug our shoulders, stoop low,
and not believe that the best is yet to come.
The fight must be there because we have a clear vision of what we want to
"move on" to, and are indignant of our people's penchant for
compromise. We fight not because we choose to ignore the work to be done
(which he implies is what "rallying" does), but because we see THIS to be a
fundamental part of it.
The fight must be there not because we've forgotten the virtue of
forgiveness, but rather because we should be all-the-wiser now, and should
perhaps realize that in the past we have forgiven too often too soon.
I do not think there can ever be a scientific judgment for debates such as
this. Your judgment will naturally be a function of your dreams, goals,
and concerns -- be they short- or long-term. This guy however argues that
this is a pathetic cause because of the people who are leading it. A
classic case of ad hominem. So he misses the point of those, like me, who
DON'T want to be president, and yet still stand to fight.
I will say again here what I've said to all those with whom I have spoken
on matters like this. The greatest affliction of the country right now is
our lack of pride and hope. We are poor and hungry now -- and these appear
to be the most ghastly of realities. But it is our tragic hopelessness
that will keep us poor and hungry forever. This is what drives the best
and the brightest away. It is what makes the honest ones believe that they
have no place in their own motherland. It is what will make our children's
children's dreams utterly boring -- which is very often solely to become
American, Canadian, Australian, or anything other than Filipino. (There
are MANY good reasons to want to go out of the country, but to do so
saying that the country is hopeless can just never be logical. Perhaps this
is best left for another comment.)
Surely, this is fed in a large part by corruption and poverty. There's no
denying that. So it is often said that this is part of vicious cycle with
no end in sight. It need not be though. Hope and pride are matters
internal to us. If there's anything the holocaust survivors (e.g. Victor
Frankl), or in fact, history in general should teach us, it is that hope
need not succumb to anything. So herein lies our solution, and it is
necessarily long-term. (Perhaps too long-term for anyone to believe it is
worth fighting for.) We break the cycle by beginning to really own our
government, not leaving it to the corrupt to just blunder and mess
up. (Though we must start learning to do this everyday, and not just when
the next hyped-up EDSA rally comes along). We fight until it gets better.
We work hard until we're dead.
I often tell my friends: the funny thing about hopelessness is that it's
never really there until we say it is. And this is what I sense Austero is
somehow guilty of. To me, his hopelessness (which is unfortunately
already shared by many) is an even greater danger than Gloria can ever be.
It is for these reasons that his letter, as much as it makes sense to a
lot of well-meaning individuals, is impossible for me to accept. It reeks
of a cynicism we just can’t afford. I say that we fight (in AND out of the
streets) because we deserve better, and we should never relinquish this.
Any pragmatist, of course, will vomit at these words. He will call me
naive. But let him do so. I believe what's at stake here is something
higher than what he'll allow himself to see. If anything, let these be our
children's capacity for pride, and the creativity of their dreams.
******************************************************************************************
i don't expect to be sending out replies anymore. so i might just read yours, hoping i might learn more than what i believe i already understand.
yes, we might not agree, and probably never will on this GMA matter. but as you say, we are certainly all in this together. (hope your fans understand this.)
cheers,
michael francis ian vega
We have no control over how people interpret what we write - this has been the most major of all my realizations in the last month. That letter was written in an hour's time and for this blog. Like I said, had I known that it was going to be that big, I would have rewritten it for better clarity and more style. But i maintain that if there is anyone out there who knows exactly what I meant in what I wrote, that is me and no one else. I guess the same applies to you.
You are correct, most of the parts of the letter was a huge rant against those who were leading the duplicitous turn of events of February 24-26. It was a rant against those who were crying "democracy" while at the same time being engaged in efforts to topple democratic systems.
I wish I share your optimism about getting it right the third time around. But I don't. This does not mean I have lost hope - on the contrary, I remain hopeful that if we do things the right way, then things may work after all.
The rest of your points I have already addressed in this blog at one point or another.
I don't have fans; and obviously has no great desire to be popular given my views. But if some people do write you (given that your email address was published in PDI-which I did not do in this blog, btw)welcome to the club of those who now have to watch every word they write (smile).
I can empathize with the way your ideas have been bent and crafted to suit other people's idea of what they think they are or should be. But as long as we stick to our points and resist the temptation to get personal there should be less acrimony.
I wanted to publish your letter in full as well when I wrote my response, but I wasn't sure you would have wanted it. But thanks for writing your original letter in your comment. And thanks for getting in touch. Appreciate it.
Bong
Being called a pragmatist, under our situation, is a badge of honor. So Bong, take it as a compliment.
All the anti-GMA people would not mind getting our country to ground zero, mapaalis lang si Ate Glue. This is so obvious to the silent majority.
Yet the anti-GMA people are still wondering why the people are not out on the streets.
A piece of unsolicited advice to all the anti-GMA people - 99% of you should shut up. CHOOSE THE MOST CREDIBLE AMONG YOU TO BE YOUR SPOKESPERSON, then maybe, just maybe, you can get the majority of the people to join you.
The actions being promoted by these self-annointed "guardians" of our rights, freedom screams of blatant disregard of established justice system. How then could you trust such people who opt to resort to mob rule rather than bring their gripes before the bar of justice. If we can no longer trust our judicial institutions then we are really in deep rut. Or that is just what these people would like to portray and want us to see. So beware of the wolf in sheepskin!
pwede yan sa mga tribo noong panahon kung saan pwedeng magwrestling na lang ang dalawang tao at ang mas malakas pwedeng maging pinuno.
kung ano ang naging desisyon mo, matuto kang panindigan ito. Kung may kamalian, sa susunod umaasa akong matuto ka at di na uulitin ito. Ngayon kung ikaw mr. vega ay di naman talaga bomoto dyan kay GMA, siguro yan na ang paliwanag ng iyong pananaw katulad ng mga taong ayaw sa kanya. Nagiging consistent lang kayo.
isa pa, naiinis lang ako sa mga taong nagsesermon tungkol sa moralidad. Sa tingin nila ay lubhang malinis sila at, siyempre, may moral ascendancy sa iba.
ang puntong hindi nyo makuha ay ito, nais namin ng katahimikan at nais namin ng pagasenso at pagbabago. Ang pagbabagong ito, sa paniniwala namin, ay makakamit di sa pagpipilitang baguhin ang ibang tao kundi sa pagbabagong nagsisimula sa sarili.
Sana kung i-channel nyo sa advocacy nito ang tila masidhing pagnanasa at effort sa kapoprotesta,aba malamang me patutunguhan tayo.
see, that is bad thing about opinion writers who write in their columns like dequiros. When they get too full of themselves, they end up believing they are some messiah and that what they have to say is the truth and everything else is fallacy. you seem to be walkin in that path.
cvj, did it ever cross your mind that what you believe could be wrong? and that divining what is the reality in this country based on your reading of the signs may not be what is the real score?
the teeming masses is governed by their stomach. our country is poor and it is not surprising why people in the survey want that woman in Malacanang ousted because they feel hungry - literally and figuratively. If you want a popular President, then you are asking for a dog that will do whatever it is that pleases. No VAT, no bitter pills, just what you want. If you say play dead - it will.
i have read somewhere that we lay our lives on our leaders and that there are some things that our leaders must bear for the good of all. and that includes the popularity which you, cvj, set so much store.
i don't wonder why we get Presidents like Erap and candidates like FPJ.
Alden, i voted for GMA so if i were focused on personalities, i would have chosen to remain silent. We are acting as if what she did was a victimless crime. Our silence reflects our complicity.
Let me differ. The "moral stance" cannot be a "pragmatic stance" at the same time.
If you really look at all "evidence" against GMA, the only smoking gun really is her admission that she talked to a COMELEC official. Note that she didnt say that it was her voice on the "Hello Garci" tapes. Yes, that's impeachable. But the problem with all the anti-GMA people was that they tried to remove her by people power kaagad; the impeachment complaint was just an afterthought. HOW FAST NILANG NAKALIMUTAN NA SI ERAP, NA-IMPEACH MUNA BAGO NA-OUST BY PEOPLE POWER. THAT'S HOW FRAGMENTED THE OPPOSITION IS.
IF THE OPPOSITION WERE REALLY PRAGMATIC THEN, THEY SHOULD HAVE WORKED ON THE NUMBERS NEEDED TO IMPEACH GMA. SADLY, THEY THOUGHT PONTIFICATING ON "KATOTOHANAN" WILL PERSUADE CONGRESSMEN TO VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT. WORSE, WALA PANG CREDIBILITY YUNG MGA TAONG NAGPOPONTIFICATE SA "KATOTOHANAN." PAANO NGA NILA MA-REACH YUNG MAGIC NUMBER TO IMPEACH GMA?
As to the rest of the "evidence" against GMA, well, they are just as credible as the opposition people who flaunt them. (meaning, WALANG CREDIBILITY! NO PROBATIVE VALUE)
Pwede yang "moral stance" kung less than 100,000 Pinoys (out of 85M) lang ang talagang poor.
The "moral stance" justifies making a collateral damage out of the jobless Pinoys. The heck with jobs, remove GMA first.
If you take a longer time horizon, let's say anything more than three years, you will see that the 'moral' and the 'pragmatic' eventually merge. By then, the current business cycle would have run its course so GMA would not be able to hide behind the fair economic weather. A new crop of leaders will have taken to heart the lesson that possession of power, regardless of the means, is nine tenths of the law - not good for political stability. Alternatively, a new populist, man of the masses would have taken over and the middle class/middle forces would now have no fiscalizing voice as they have squandered whatever moral capital they had by defending someone they consider as one of their own, right or wrong.
Given the above, it boggles me that men and women of goodwill delegate the fight to the professional opposition, when it is the soul of our class that is on the line.
The reason why you see the same tired old politicians is because there are not enough men and women of goodwill who would take a stand whenever they misbehave. Our politicos have been conditioned by the people and have taken to heart the continuing lesson that bad behavior will, more often than not, be condoned. Unfortunately in this matter, silence also does not count. We have to make an example of GMA and everyone who tries to be like her. Let's try to learn from the people of Thailand and Nepal.
Congratulations on your superior judgement during the last elections. Perhaps in the next one, i'll ask you for advice.
"If you take a longer time horizon, let's say anything more than three years, you will see that the 'moral' and the 'pragmatic' eventually merge"
Abangan natin. If an economic miracle happens within 3 years (like unemployment reduced by 80%), baka mangyari pa.
"Given the above, it boggles me that men and women of goodwill delegate the fight to the professional opposition, when it is the soul of our class that is on the line"
Let us choose our battles. Removing GMA shouldn't be one of them. Helping the poor become middle class (so they don't have to be slaves to self-proclaimed Robin Hoods like the professional opposition) is a much more important fight
I think the deal killer in all efforts towards a consensus is the issue on GMA's legitimacy. For many (like me), its not an issue, and should not be an obstacle to moving forward. I can't understand why removing GMA should be the starting point
tsk. miserable majority.