War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.

War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.

22/09/2025
19/10/2025

War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.

War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.
War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.

George Orwell, who lived through the storms of the twentieth century, declared with grim honesty: “War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.” These words strike with the power of paradox, for they do not glorify war, nor excuse it, but recognize its dreadful necessity in certain hours of human fate. To Orwell, who had fought in the Spanish Civil War and who bore witness to the rise of fascism, war was not a noble adventure but a calamity. Yet he also saw that sometimes to avoid war is to invite a far greater darkness. Thus, his saying is not a hymn to violence, but a stern warning that peace at any cost may become surrender to tyranny.

The origin of this truth lies in Orwell’s confrontation with the crises of his age. He watched as fascist powers rose in Europe, crushing liberty under their boots. He fought as a volunteer in Spain against Franco’s forces, learning firsthand the chaos, disillusion, and brutality of battle. And yet, he came to see that the refusal to resist—whether out of cowardice, indifference, or fear—would allow evil to grow unchecked. Out of this lived experience came his teaching: though war is evil, there are times when it is the only bulwark against a still greater evil, the only wall between humanity and the abyss.

The meaning of Orwell’s words is that moral choices are seldom pure. Life often forces us to choose not between good and evil, but between two evils—and in those moments, wisdom lies in choosing the lesser. War, with its death and destruction, is always terrible; but when faced with enslavement, genocide, or annihilation, the evil of war may be the price by which humanity preserves freedom and dignity. Thus Orwell calls us to a sober, tragic realism: peace is sacred, but it must not be confused with submission to oppression.

History bears witness to this teaching. Consider the Second World War. Britain, where Orwell lived, stood at the brink, facing Hitler’s relentless advance. Many voices urged appeasement, arguing that peace must be preserved, no matter the cost. But to yield further was to allow Nazism to spread unopposed across the earth. The choice before the free world was grim: either accept the destruction of liberty, or fight a war that would claim millions of lives. Here Orwell’s words find their proof—war was evil, but it was the lesser evil when compared to the triumph of fascism.

We see this truth also in the fight against slavery in the American Civil War. Slavery was a monstrous evil, entrenched in the soil of a young nation. For decades, men sought compromise, hoping to preserve peace. Yet peace meant the continued bondage of millions, their lives stolen generation after generation. When at last the Union and Confederacy clashed, the war unleashed untold suffering. But in its ashes, slavery was broken, and the nation took its first step toward justice. Here again, war proved the lesser evil, for the greater evil was to let bondage endure unchallenged.

Yet Orwell’s saying must not be twisted into license. It is not an excuse to glorify war or to wage it recklessly. His point is cautionary: to recognize that when war is waged, it is always evil, even when necessary. Its cost must be borne with sorrow, not triumphalism; with resolve, not delight. The lesser evil must never be mistaken for good. Leaders and peoples must weigh carefully before choosing it, and always strive for peace when peace does not mean surrender to oppression.

The lesson for us is clear: in our own lives, as in the life of nations, we will often face choices between evils. We must have the courage to name them honestly and the wisdom to choose the lesser, even when it still brings hardship. Do not shrink from responsibility by wishing for purity where none exists. Instead, face the hard truth, and act with integrity, knowing that to avoid all risk is itself a choice—and often the worst one.

So remember Orwell’s teaching: war is evil, but sometimes it is the lesser evil. Let this truth stir in your conscience. Strive always for peace, but never mistake cowardice for wisdom, nor surrender for harmony. When forced to choose, choose with open eyes, with heavy heart, and with unyielding devotion to justice. For in such choices the destiny of nations, and the honor of souls, is decided.

George Orwell
George Orwell

British - Author June 25, 1903 - January 21, 1950

Tocpics Related
Notable authors
Have 5 Comment War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.

HGThanh Huynh Gia

Orwell’s words make me reflect on the paradoxical nature of moral choices in times of crisis. While war is an undeniable evil, it may occasionally act as a necessary corrective to even greater threats, such as tyranny or mass atrocities. It also prompts a subjective question: how do ordinary citizens reconcile support for military action with their understanding of war’s brutality? Can public consent legitimize the pursuit of a 'lesser evil' ethically, or does it complicate accountability?

Reply.
Information sender

TSnguyen trung son

As a reader, I am struck by the ethical tension in Orwell’s observation. It acknowledges that while war is inherently destructive, in some scenarios it may be morally preferable to passivity. This raises questions about international intervention and humanitarian conflicts today. How do policymakers determine when military action prevents a greater catastrophe versus when it simply perpetuates suffering? Is the concept of a 'lesser evil' applicable in modern geopolitics?

Reply.
Information sender

NDMy nu Dang

This quote highlights the painful complexity of human decision-making in extreme circumstances. Orwell’s idea resonates with historical examples where conflict, though terrible, may have stopped atrocities from escalating. Yet, it also prompts reflection: who decides which evil is greater, and how reliable are those judgments? Could the notion of a 'lesser evil' be misused to justify aggressive policies under the guise of moral necessity?

Reply.
Information sender

TPLe Thanh Phuoc

Reading this, I feel the weight of Orwell’s realism. War is a moral tragedy, yet sometimes inaction may allow a greater injustice to flourish. This makes me question how leaders balance ethical considerations against pragmatic necessity. Can any war truly be justified as a lesser evil, or is this just a way to rationalize human suffering? How do we reconcile the immediate horrors of war with its potential to prevent even worse outcomes?

Reply.
Information sender

QMDoan Thi Quynh My

Orwell’s statement forces a grim reflection on moral dilemmas in human history. It suggests that war, while inherently destructive, can sometimes prevent even greater evils, such as genocide, oppression, or totalitarian domination. It raises a complex question: how can societies evaluate when engaging in conflict truly represents the 'lesser evil'? Is this calculation ethical, or does it risk normalizing violence as an acceptable solution in morally ambiguous situations?

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender