Questioning the Quoted ... Geralt of Rivia
This one feels to me like it’s been so long overdue and yet it’s so famous. Geralt, our favourite stoic witcher from the novels of Andrzej Sapkowski, further immortalised by the game series where people were able to sprinkle in their own vision of their gritty and sometimes witty monster slayer. If you know the stories and delve into them, you’ll notice quite a lot of allegories of real life issues, many of them very apt for the present day. So which of his quotes we’re going to dissect today? Well, of course the most famous one of them. It’s been mentioned in the books, in the games and even very early in the series (when the series actually cared about the source material). And the quote is:
Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary, the definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all.
I’ve taken version from the trailer to the third game but the quote has been permeating Geralt’s entire story in some other variations. Let’s see how it stands.
Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, makes no difference; this part is indeed true. Evil is evil and it really doesn’t matter how big or small it is. Sometimes even a seemingly good act, or an act of evil done in a good interest results in things going the way which would enable something really nasty to happen. How come you say? Well, I’m sure you’ve heard about a concept of “white lie”. A lie told to someone to lower an impact of an event or intentionally misdirect them to “ease the pain”. We all have done this. Now allow me to ask: Was it worth it in the end? Or was the end result only worse once the “victim” found out? Did you actually ease the pain? Or only delayed the inevitable by avoiding the confrontation AND added some salt into the wound by damaging the trust between you and the victim? Think about it. You committed the “lesser evil” in your eyes. But it was evil nonetheless and with potentially dire consequences. Had you chosen the other option which seemed like a greater evil, it may not have been evil at all. Painful, surely, but not evil.
Granted, I’ve chosen an example that is very situational and highly context-dependent but I’ve done so on purpose to highlight that lesser evil may very much become a really big one AND it’s still an evil act.
The degree is arbitrary, the definition’s blurred; yet again on point. For the is no objective evil. Yes, there are acts that are evil in many or almost all contexts and applications but there’s no objective definition. What someone considers evil someone else might not. Or what someone considers a crime against their very core, someone else might see as a minor flaw. Doesn’t it remind you of something? Maybe a cult-like behaviour who always try to preach an objective truth or decry objective evil? Allow me to point at ancient cultures or religions which committed human sacrifices. Is human sacrifice evil? Of course it is by our present day measures. And yet it wasn’t back then. Hell, capital punishment is regarded in majority of places an inhumane and evil nowadays. And yet there are plenty of places where this isn’t a thing and it’s considered sensible.
See where I’m going? Unless you have an objective or at least very highly agreed upon definition of evil, you can’t measure it.
If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all; the part that many people stick to, the story points at so many times and I think quite a lot of people misuse. A little bit of witcher lore; the witcher code enshrines political neutrality of the guild. This means that witchers aren’t allowed to accept work which would benefit someone in a political gain and they’re strongly encouraged not be involved in political conflicts. Geralt is very often confronted with such situations and he highlights this requirement many times.
There’s however one crucial thing when it comes to neutrality: Neutrality DOES NOT mean refusal to act. Neutrality means you don’t act on political motives. You act on something in a certain way because it’s a right thing to do. Hence why Geralt sometimes works in alignment with certain highly influential people or powers not because it’d benefit them or him but because other options are worse. Does this break witcher’s neutrality code? Not necessarily for he’s not bound by anything and he can refuse to cooperate further, with consequences of course. And those consequences, can be dire. Either to him or those caught in the aftermath.
Where am I going with this? In some recent electoral events, quite a lot of people choose the path of “not getting involved” either due to apathy or outright refusal, citing the “I don’t want to choose lesser evil.” The result of their non-involvement however has been, at least in one very prominent case far, far worse than the other option would be. They chose to adhere to the code strictly and that caused more harm than good. Read the quote again: … I’d RATHER not choose at all. Even Geralt admits that there may not be a perfect or even a good choice.
So what would you do in such situation? Well, choose the evil you have the strength to fight or have a much easier time to rally people to go with you. Because if you don’t and someone else choose the greater one, you might find yourself alone in a fight with an adversary you can’t take.
In the end, Geralt’s quote stands really strongly. Just don’t take it at face value and look a little bit deeper.
R.R.A.