"Between two evils, choose neither; between two goods, choose both"
About this Quote
A clean little bit of moral geometry: don’t bargain with sin, and don’t ration virtue. Edwards’ line rejects the popular fantasy that ethics is mostly damage control, a constant forced choice between compromises. “Between two evils, choose neither” carries the theologian’s impatience with consequentialist shrugging - the idea that you can disinfect wrongdoing by calling it “the lesser.” The subtext is that evil is not just a bad outcome; it’s a category, a contamination. Once you accept the frame that you must pick an evil, you’ve already surrendered the moral imagination that could have found a third option: refusal, withdrawal, dissent, sacrifice.
The second clause turns the screw. “Between two goods, choose both” isn’t a Hallmark additive; it’s a rebuke to scarcity thinking in virtue. Modern life trains us to treat goodness like a limited resource: you can be principled or effective, kind or honest, faithful or free. Edwards suggests that’s often a convenient alibi. If two choices are genuinely good, why let caution, vanity, or tribal loyalty force a needless tradeoff? His phrasing also implies a hierarchy: abstaining from evil is baseline discipline; embracing multiple goods is aspirational abundance.
Context matters. Mid-19th-century American Protestant moral discourse prized clarity, not nuance-for-nuance’s sake. Edwards is writing into debates where “necessary evils” were routinely invoked to justify everything from political expediency to economic brutality. The line works because it’s brief enough to sound like common sense, but rigid enough to be a provocation: if you’re stuck choosing between evils, ask who built the trap - and why you’re volunteering to step into it.
The second clause turns the screw. “Between two goods, choose both” isn’t a Hallmark additive; it’s a rebuke to scarcity thinking in virtue. Modern life trains us to treat goodness like a limited resource: you can be principled or effective, kind or honest, faithful or free. Edwards suggests that’s often a convenient alibi. If two choices are genuinely good, why let caution, vanity, or tribal loyalty force a needless tradeoff? His phrasing also implies a hierarchy: abstaining from evil is baseline discipline; embracing multiple goods is aspirational abundance.
Context matters. Mid-19th-century American Protestant moral discourse prized clarity, not nuance-for-nuance’s sake. Edwards is writing into debates where “necessary evils” were routinely invoked to justify everything from political expediency to economic brutality. The line works because it’s brief enough to sound like common sense, but rigid enough to be a provocation: if you’re stuck choosing between evils, ask who built the trap - and why you’re volunteering to step into it.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Tryon
Add to List
