Which statement correctly describes the 'least harmful option' requirement in the choice of evils defense?

Which statement correctly describes the 'least harmful option' requirement in the choice of evils defense?

• A. The actor must choose the option causing the least property damage
• B. The actor must have chosen the least harmful option among feasible means
• C. The actor must choose the option with the least social impact
• D. The actor may choose any option during imminent danger

Answer: (B)

In this defense, the essential idea is that when someone faces a threatened harm and must choose between illegal actions, they are justified only if there were no lawful alternatives and they picked the option that causes the least harm among feasible means. This requirement ensures the actor genuinely tried to minimize damage rather than choosing a more dangerous or reckless path. The correct statement captures this precisely: the actor must have chosen the least harmful option among feasible means. Property-focused or broad social-impact considerations aren’t the deciding factors in this rule, and allowing any option during imminent danger would ignore the need to limit harm. If someone could choose a course of action that causes less harm and still addresses the threat, that is the option that should be taken.

In this defense, the essential idea is that when someone faces a threatened harm and must choose between illegal actions, they are justified only if there were no lawful alternatives and they picked the option that causes the least harm among feasible means. This requirement ensures the actor genuinely tried to minimize damage rather than choosing a more dangerous or reckless path. The correct statement captures this precisely: the actor must have chosen the least harmful option among feasible means.

Property-focused or broad social-impact considerations aren’t the deciding factors in this rule, and allowing any option during imminent danger would ignore the need to limit harm. If someone could choose a course of action that causes less harm and still addresses the threat, that is the option that should be taken.