Lesser Evil: Political Ethics In An Age Of Terror

by Michael Ignatieff

In the age of terrorism, the temptations of ruthlessness can be overwhelming. But there is also the anxiety that a violent response to violence makes us morally indistinguishable from our enemies. There is perhaps no greater political challenge today than trying to win the war against terrorism without losing our democratic souls. Michael Ignatieff confronts this challenge head-on with a combination of pragmatic idealism, historical sensitivity, and astute political judgment. Ignatieff traces the modern history of terrorism and counter-terrorism from the nihilists of Czarist Russia and the militias of Weimar Germany to the IRA and Al Qaeda. He shows how the most potent response to terror has been force, decisive and direct, but—just as important—restrained. Restraint also gives democracy its strongest the moral power to endure when the furies of vengeance and hatred are spent. Finalist for the 2004 Lionel Gelber Award "An impeccably argued case for how to balance security and liberty in the face of the new kind of threat posed by today's terrorists…"— Publishers Weekly

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Political Science, Terrorism, War, Canada

226 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Michael Grant Ignatieff is a Canadian author, academic and former politician. He was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Leader of the Official Opposition from 2008 until 2011. Known for his work as a historian, Ignatieff has held senior academic posts at the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Harvard University and the University of Toronto.

Reviews

[Jonathan Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ignatieff doesn't present any radically new ideas, but he does provide some solid, pragmatic justifications for using "lesser evil" methods in dealing with terrorism. He understands that we do not live in a perfect world, and that we have to commit evil (often limiting some freedoms) to keep other freedoms intact. Most importantly, he argues that "a people living in fear are not free", something that can often be lost in a libertarian argument to maintaining civil liberties to their fullest extent.

That being said, he contradicts himself a number of times throughout the book. Despite clearly acknowledging that governments can, and do, abuse the public's trust during an emergency to unnecessarily curtail civil liberties, he still advocates that many of these abuses are ok, as long as there is a sunset clause. Later on, he criticizes the Patriot Act, a bill with a sunset clause attached, for it's overreach, but doesn't fully address the ratchet effect of enacting these bills in the first place that can often lead to permanent or semi-permanent overreach. This happens a number of other times where he argues from a theoretical point of view that some methods can work without a basis in historical reality. It's easy to agree with him on theoretical points that stress utilitarian outcomes, but it's less easy to trust democratic leaders to do the right thing under the mandate of lessening the harm for all, when there are innumerable examples of civil liberty curtailment, many of which he outlines, which end up doing much more harm than good. With that in mind, perhaps civil libertarians do have the right idea, in that the best outcome will usually be the one where there is little to no lawful room for an overreaction from politicians.

Despite a few points of conflict, I did find myself agreeing with much of what he said. I was particularly impressed by his prescient advocacy for Western support for a possible democratic uprising in the Middle East, something that most North American politicians didn't immediately do when that did happen during the Arab Spring. Moreover, his recognition that "the response to terrorism, not terrorism itself, does the most harm", and that terrorist prey on overreaction.

It's a shame that Ignatieff was never elected as Canadian Prime Minister; it's possible that he would have been one of the few politicians who deserved some wiggle room and practiced the lesser evil method instead of overreacting. The world could have been a better place, even if only slightly.

[Sulayman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredible book. He discusses some of the Worst Case scenarios of terrorism and breaks down the ethics of each, and then delves into the history of previous governments worldwide and how they coped with such issues.

If you expect him to say all torture/wiretaps/suspension of civil liberties is right or wrong, you will be surprised by the somewhat middle ground he takes, and given that he so thoroughly cites his sources and lays out a clear rationale, I found myself agreeing with him despite opening the book with pre-conceived notions. Any serious political scientist or civil liberties advocate should read this.

[Curt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very readable book based on Gifford Lectures delivered in 2003. The 9/11 attacks and the suspension of civil liberties were fresh on everyone's mind but the topics addressed are still very relevant. Besides the difficult choices that are made in response to recent terrorist attacks there are other more ancient references like Medea's decision to killing her two children rather than having them killed by strangers. Not being an ecclesiastical scholar, I was concerned about the book being too dense for a lay reader but I had no difficulty following the lucid scenarios.

[An Te Chu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Prescient for having been written in 2003 and somewhat tragic given the electoral failure of the author. An interesting avenue that deserves further exploration is whether societies can handle the truth that Ignatieff urges liberal democracies to recognize: that lesser evils are nonetheless evil. Fifteen years later, we still seem to be polarized by those who refuse to look evil in the eye and those all too glad to stomach it.

[Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most people who read this book have strong feelings against some of the author's conclusions, but none of them seems to offer any alternatives. Ignatieff does here what no politician has done - tries to think ethically, and in explicit terms, about the worst case scenario.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

This turned out to be a timely book to read for me given the re-ignition of war between Palestine and israel on the day I finished it. Writing in 2003-4, MI seeks to form an ethicist's understanding the problem of terrorism for liberal democracies. The heart of the book is the idea of the lesser evil: that terrorism as a strategy forces democracies into choosing lesser evils. He discusses things like detention, pre-emptive war, targeted assassination, torture rendition, and so on. He argues that defeating terrorism requires the use of force, but that usage must A. be within certain moral boundaries (torture is never justified, rendition rarely, pre-emption only under a strict set of circumstances) and B. be subject to public adversarial review.

This latter point is the key theme of his argument. Of course, governments cannot tell the people everything they know about terrorist threats, but they also cannot adopt a pose of "if you only knew what we knew" or "just trust us." THeir claims about the severity of the threat and the necessity of a certain responses must be evaluated by Congress, the media, the courts, and ultimately the people, which can provide a variety of checks on potential abuses. I think this is a valid way of thinking about liberal/democratic control of counterterrorism policy, although I'm not sure US institutions functioned this way (or they did but with a major time lag). There was a wide period where the shock of 9/11 made most Americans highly deferential to gov't action. The information advantage of the executive enabled them to manipulate public opinion on issues like iraqi WMD and pull the US into an unnecessary conflict. Congress and the media exposed certain programs and abuses, but some programs (like PRISM) required the actions of whistleblowers to expose. I'd love to hear more now about whether MI thinks the US passed the test of adversarial review in the GWOT, although he makes the very valid point that terrorist groups themselves do not have such institutional checks.

This is not a war-mongering book at all but a sensitive and nuanced treatment of the dilemmas of fighting terrorism while maintaining one's values and identity as much as possible. MI believes that ultimately terrorism cannot be totally defeated without taking care of the oppression, poverty, and indignities that drive many people to become terrorists in the first place. However, he is clear that terrorists more often than not are trying to use violence to prevent peace deals from becoming possible and to achieve goals that are essentially impossible to fulfill for the targeted state (like Hamas' goal of eradicating Israel-nothing but Israel's destruction would ever stop their violence completely). He confronts the challenge of apocalyptic terrorism with WMD head on, arguing for a multilateral strategy that includes force but also non-proliferation, political reform, and multilateral cooperation. This is a pretty classic liberal version of the GWOT, which overlaps with but is much less unilateral and militaristic than the neocon version.

This book is short, readable, and thoughtful. I have found big problems with a lot of MI's commentary on the War on Terror, but this is a worthwhile philosophical text for people interested in terrorism, ethics, and law.

[Cade Grace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Challenges the current political ideologies surrounding war on terror. Discussed the ethical and philosophical dilemmas associated with torture and revenge, and how the war on terror is nothing better than a lesser evil.

[Cara Lynn]

Read for school

[Kirill Abbakumov · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dry academic discussion of ethically combating terrorist threats and actions. Written for an academic audience, and since I no longer have any skin in the game, most of the subject matter went over my head, and I zoned out too many times.

Ignatieff writes well, but I found his thoughts disorganized and scattershot across every chapter as he adds on concepts upon concepts I every page. This made his arguments and discussion hard to track, and his logic was easy to lose in the weeds.

The answer to the main question still remains ambiguous: must we use harsh methods to combat terrorism? It is unclear as Ignatieff stresses the sanctity of human rights and what makes us civilized in liberal democracies while also proposing to have warrants for legitimized torture.

Being published in 2003/2004, the discussion seemed relevant at that time in the echochamber of human rights vs terrorism dialogue, but the world has largely moved on since then, making it a curious academic artifact.

[Harvey · Rating 4 out of 5]

- from the jacket: "Ignatieff argues that we must not shirk from the use of violence - that far from undermining liberal democracy, force can be necessary for its survival. But its use must be measured, not as a program of torture and revenge. And we must not fool ourselves that whatever we do in the name of freedom and democracy is good. We may need to kill to fight the greater evil of terrorism, but we must never pretend that doing so is anything better than a lesser evil."

[Arjan Zuidhof · Rating 3 out of 5]

Afgewogen en genuanceerd verhaal over hoe de maatschappij zich zou moeten verhouden tot terrorisme. Enige morele dieptepunt is dat de auteur onder voorwaarden marteling toestaat om aanslagen te kunnen voorkomen. Al put hij zich uit in voorwaarden en excuses om dit onderwerp, dit was wat mij betreft een koude douche in dit verder verfrissende boek

[Darrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well thought through arguments in relation to torture especially.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid, if unremarkable. I did like how dealt with the idea that 'extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.' Of course that approach might be worse than the disease, depending on circumstances.

[Catfantastic]

Deeply chilling, to watch someone who led a major political party argue that a civilized society is justified in using torture.