If you ask me "is Lesser of two evils" a perfect approach any where in human life.
I would say in most of the spheres?
Dont take the meaning of Evil literally but if you take the meaning in a sense where we choose the one with lesser imperfections....then its practically applicable to most of the things we do.
And I think there is nothing wrong in this kind of approach
Its not always possible in life to get the perfect thing
so within the available things we choose the one which is some what better than the other.
Its better to have something than nothing.
They say "a bird in hand is worth than two in bush".
I think the proverb is valid when those two options are really the only ones. Given this assumption, the rational solution is to choose the lesser evil. If you have to choose between losing a leg for amputation or losing your life, the best option is clear. But in many situations there may be other options if we think creatively.
idioms and proverbs can appeal to the ignorant mass, using
metaphors , objectification and embodiment of abstract concepts are employed for rationalization and justification of despicable harmful issues ,
they are fallacious arguments aimed at deception and trickery. this ''lesser of two evils or Hobson's choice has led to tragic political and social catastrophes , like selecting dangerous racist misogynist rapists as presidents.
you don't have to take the nearest horse to the door in the stall or the loudest dog in the pack , you can just bike or walk, or just read books and listen to The Doors ,,,,,
All care: chemicals, biochemical, biological and physical involve a degree of risk and are always potentially dangerous. Doctors know very well that there are no risk-free care. Therefore physician always choose the lesser evil, knowledge and belief, taking into account that medicine is not an exact science. For this reason we take care by the physician and not by the shaman though sometimes the shaman guess.
Is "Lesser of two evils" a perfect approach anythere in human life ?
"Lesser of two evils" is analogous to "making the lesser loss among the 2 loss making projects". When we think about this approach we need to ask ourselves is it really no other better option or option for the better / best profit making project. We might be running out of idea but we can always brainstorm with others for second opinions. "Lesser of two evils" is only viable option if we have no other better alternative.
Choosing the lesser evil is sometimes necessary if the purpose is for the greater good. For example, Nelson Mandela faced the dilemma of losing political support from some of his political associates and retribution against his opponents/enemies. He decided to choose the former as it was the lesser evil--the choice would bring less consequential damage to the country. Here's an excerpt about his decision:
"Mandela had every reason to seek vengeance against the guarantors and enactors of Apartheid. Some in his African National Congress party thirsted for vengeance. But he didn’t. Instead he negotiated with his adversaries and included them in the transition. In doing so, he likely avoided a miserable fate: the country falling into disrepair, chaos and retributive violence."