The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror

by Michael Ignatieff

Book Overview

Must we fight terrorism with terror, match assassination with assassination, and torture with torture? Must we sacrifice civil liberty to protect public safety?

In the age of terrorism, the temptations of ruthlessness can be overwhelming. But we are pulled in the other direction too by the anxiety that a violent response to violence makes us morally indistinguishable from our enemies. There is perhaps no greater political challenge today...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0691123934
• ISBN13: 9780691123936
• Release Date: September 2005
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Length: 232 Pages
• Weight: 0.75 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 6.1" x 9.2"

Customer Reviews

Brilliant

I've only read a few sections out of his book, and now I am determined to invest a few days out of my upcoming break to read his entire book. The man is brilliant, absolutely brilliant. The book, by all means, sheds light on matters that have most people in the dark. Definitely a worth while read.

Excellent book

This is an excellent, short book that expertly tackles the problem of individual-rights based democracy versus majority-rights based democracy, and argues towards the existence of a middle ground that can assure a semblence of security without destroying the rule of law that a liberal democracy rests on.The recognization that some suspensions are necessary, but that they MUST be regarded as 'lesser evils' is a compelling argument from this respected human rights scholar. The book convincingly lays forth its arguments, and critically dissects both the position of the civil libertarian and that of the security state.It has certainly changed my outlook on the 'war on terror', and the parable of Ulysees is the most graphic image I retained from the book and is useful. Hopefully, leaders in the United States and other liberal democracies will read this book and take some of the lessons (arguments?) to heart.

Does lesser civil rights evil result in greater evil?

Michael Ignatieff, a liberal writer, columnist, broadcaster, and Harvard University professor has written a thoughtful, readable, and non-partisan book on how democracies should deal with the domestic civil rights challenges of terrorism. This book elevates the discussion beyond political hate rhetoric, propaganda, spin, and jingoism. What Ignatieff is concerned about is how democracies avoid political repression at home while fighting brutal wars abroad. Ignatieff's political ethics of the lesser evil charts a midway course between a pure civil libertarianism and cynical pragmatism (antiterrorist measures should be judged by only their effectiveness). In a nutshell Ignatieff's book discusses how emergencies such as 9/11 can be used to abandon civil rights, how he believes that democracies usually overreact to terror, how he believes terrorism is a response to injustice and blocked political means of redress, how terrorist and anti-terrorists may start with high ideals but end up in a vicious cycle of violence for its own sake, and the challenges to liberal democracies posed when weapons of mass destruction pass into the hands of small terrorist cells rather than states. Ignatieff bases his lesser evil approach to political ethics on novels and Greek plays and the political philosophy of the 15th Century Italian diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, The Discourses). Ignatieff's implication that the Iraq war is an overreaction to terrorism is inconsistent with his own ethical criteria that force should only be used as a last resort. He contends that 9/11 did not endanger the social order of the U.S. and likens the U.S. response to 9/11 to that of the Red Scare of the 1950's. Here Ignatieff's reasoned book deteriorates into mush. Ignatieff ignores the encroaching steps of terrorism going back to the 1970's beginning with the Iran hostage crisis, the assassination of Anwar Sadat in Egypt, the bombing of 200 U.S. Marines in Lebanon, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the bombing of the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole, all leading up to 9/11. Considering the totality of these terrorist acts, it would seem the U.S. has not been easily prone to provocation and thus met Ignatieff's last resort ethical criteria. Where Ignatieff is at his best is when he points out that the strategy of insurrectionary terrorism employed by Russian revolutionaries is similar to that of current Islamic terrorists: to provoke ruling governments into atrocities on the battlefield and political repression at home that will weaken the grip of the allegiance of their citizens and allied nations. If this is so, Ignatieff offers us no insights as to what is the lesser evil: domestic civil rights violations incited by anti-war activists or the horrific mass murder and destruction of legal institutions of revolutionaries once they are in power. Ignatieff prefers to confine his discussion of the lesser evil to domestic civil liberties rather than the more diffi

Finding the middle way in terrorist response

In this short book, Ignatieff presents a valuable and well-researched historical context for the current climate of terrorism.His book helped me to understand the motivation of terrorist organizations. He suggests a middle way for a liberal democracy's response to a terrorist threat, suggesting that a temporary loss of the freedoms and rights that define liberal democracy may be necessary to ensure security. He suggests careful safeguards to ensure that these rights and freedoms are restored when the threat ends.

How many others out there are asking these questions?

Michael Ignatieff has been a writer I have read quite a bit in my Master's degree in Genocide Studies. He is a leading Human Rights advocate, professor and writer. However, I have enjoyed reading his works because he is very practical. He often examines the psychological nature of "warriors" or people engaged in warfare. He realizes that liberal democracies must be able to fight those who seek to terrorize them. But, how do you do this and remain true to everything a liberal, democratic society stands for? The answer is fighting back with necessary but "Lesser Evils." This is no easy task, for a Human Rights professor to admit that some atrocities must be committed in the defense of a nation, but what are they? He is hardly an apologist for sadistic and unethical treatment of suspects though. This point must be clear before you read this book; he is no Dershowitz and argues against him here. Ignatieff often tells how democracies may be tempted to fight their enemies with an "eye for an eye" mentality, but sinking down to their level is a bigger threat that some terrorists are aiming for as a goal. He uses history as a guide and notes that democracies tend to overreact to terrorist threats. He even notes that civil liberties may be suspended TEMPORARIRLY in times of emergency, (which he notes would outrage many civil libertarians) but this would be an example of a lesser evil. However, he writes as a person admitting some measures may need to happen, but it will leave a bad taste in all of our mouths, and the longer it goes on the more bitter. Its "lack of permanence" is necessary.Yes, he talks of torture (before it came out in the media in Iraq) "They (national leaders) need results from their security services, and in the pressure of the moment, they may not care overmuch about how these results are obtained. A culture of silent complicity may develop between civilian political leaders and their security chiefs, in which both sides know that extralegal means are being used but each has an interest in keeping quiet about it." -p. 135 Hello Mr. Rumsfeld.He goes on to say why torture is especially bad for a democracy, "a moral hazard."Finally, of great importance in this book is he looks at six different types of terrorism, explains them and then talks about how they can be confronted, though sometimes his answers fall short (you hope he gives a workable solution to all these problems, though you realize it isn't possible).He finishes with a chapter on the possibility of terrorists possessing a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon. History, which served as his guide in earlier chapters, would no longer apply to this scenario. He suggests that a society that is truthful to its citizens and will engage in dialogue with other countries, international organizations, while also placing responsibility on itself and other stable nations not to let unstable ones divulge into chaos is essential. Rarely has terrorism been abl