In the 1980s, when anti-military dictatorship demonstrations were prevalent in Korean society, I frequently heard slogans like “For the greater good!” or “For the grand cause!” As long as it was for the grand cause, the sacrifice of human lives was nothing but collateral damage, and individual sacrifice was insignificant and inevitable for the greater good. As a result, in order to fight the dictatorial regime and bring about democracy, anything was justified, even the killing of innocent bystanders.

Embarrassingly, I am still hearing the same slogan in 2017. While watching the Chinese movie, “Hero,” on TV again a few days ago, I was appalled to hear the dialog between an assassin and the first emperor of the Qin Dynasty. Asked why he does not want to kill the emperor, the assassin answers that it is for the greater good -- in order to conquer and unify the world, the emperor should not be assassinated even if he is a ruthless tyrant who has killed many people for political gain. The assassin also states that before the grand cause of gaining the world, the life of an individual is trivial. That, however, is a very dangerous idea that can easily degenerate into fascist and totalitarian thought.

Writers have always pointed out the danger of such an ideology-first attitude that justifies the means to an end and ignores the value of individual life. In “The Just Assassins” by Albert Camus, the party orders the protagonist Kaliaev to assassinate the duke just before the Russian Revolution. When he finds the duke is with a little girl, Kaliaev cannot bring himself to throw the bomb and gives up on the mission. His colleague, Stepan, who thinks of himself as an advocate of justice criticizes Kaliaev harshly for his weak mind. But in this play that has been criticized by communists, Camus makes the reader ponder: “What is the meaning of the grand cause and what is justice?”

In “Inferno,” Dan Brown brings up the same issue. In order to save earth from overpopulation, a renowned but fanatical scientist named Zobrist develops a new virus that will cause sterility in humans, thus radically reducing population growth. To his advocate and lover, Sienna, who tries to execute Zobrist’s wish, the protagonist Robert Langdon pleads, “My God, don’t do it, Sienna. It will be murdering innocent people.”

Sienna replies, “Yes, people will die, a lot of them.” Langdon retorts, “Killing billions to save lives? That’s the logic of a tyrant.” Then Sienna utters the familiar phrase, “For the greater good!” She continues, “If you love humanity, you can do anything to save it.” Langdon poignantly points out the fallacy of such an idea, “The greatest sin in human history was committed in the name of love.”

In “The Name of the Rose,” Umberto Eco also warns of the danger of the thinking that anything can be justified in the name of the greater good or the grand cause. Referring to the ruthless inquisitor and the blind head of the library, William points out that there is only a thin line between religious zeal and evil madness. He says, “An inquisitor, too, can be impelled by the Devil.” William even tells his novice Adso that he should be aware of those who could and would die for the truth or the grand cause because such people can easily let other people die with him or for him.

Eco’s novel shows the reader that even medicine can be poisonous, if used excessively. It also indicates that even the greater good can be harmful, if pushed to the extreme. In the novel, there is a famous passage regarding the relationship between medicine and poison: “That depends on what you mean by poison. There are substances that in small doses are healthful and in excessive doses cause death.

“As I said, the line between poison and medicine is subtle. The Greeks used the word, ‘phamarcon’ for both.”

In a recent riveting thriller, “Eye in the Sky,” the same issue of the greater good is presented. Notorious terrorist leaders are meeting in a safe house in Nairobi where they are preparing two suicidal bombers to launch an attack to kill about 800 civilians soon. A multinational Western military team decides to strike the safe house with a Hellfire missile from a drone. Suddenly, however, things get complicated, as they find a little girl selling bread near the target building.

Now impending moral dilemma rises. To strike or not to strike, that is the question. Can they strike for the greater good and save 800 civilians’ lives at the cost of one girl? Or not to strike and save the girl’s life at the cost of 800 civilian lives? It is by no means an easy thing to decide lightly. Nevertheless, we should value even one little girl’s life for humanitarian cause. The lesser good is as important as the greater good.

We should beware of those who are obsessed with the greater good or the grand cause.


By Kim Seong-kon

Kim Seong-kon is a professor emeritus of English at Seoul National University and president of the Literature Translation Institute of Korea. He can be reached at sukim@snu.ac.kr. -- Ed.