Last week, I discussed the question of the lesser evil in the sense of the common dilemma faced by many voters, be it in the United States, Britain or even in Bermuda. Size limitations prevented me from articulating a vision for an alternative political approach, as well as an attempt to outline what good and evil means in the first place — after all, how can one determine which choice is the lesser evil if one cannot judge what is good or evil in the first place? In my thinking, this question of ethics is fundamental and is one that needs addressing first.

In general, when you hear a politician frame an election in apocalyptic terms of a battle between good and evil, it should set off alarm bells about that politician. There is a real risk of hyperbole laying a foundation for violence — it is the currency of the demagogue, not a friend of democracy. I feel most recognise the saying of “vote for the lesser evil” as a common political phrase, not reaching such levels of hyperbole. Nonetheless, it does oblige one to reflect on how one determines which is the lesser evil, and that does require one to reflect on one’s ethics — what is good and evil?

When it comes to ethics, it occurs to me that one can choose between an authoritarian ethics or a humanist ethics. By authoritarian in this sense, I mean ethics given from an authority — be it the state in outlining criminal law, or from a divinity, with its various priests divining what is good or evil. It does not necessarily have to be interpreted as authoritarian in the sense that is commonly used — such as an authoritarian regime. However, I do believe authoritarian ethics can lend itself to the development of such.

As a side note, it is important to differentiate between rational and irrational authority, drawing on the insight of the Marxist Paulo Freire. Irrational authority is that which demands deference solely because it claims to be the authority — it is ultimately based on power and inequality between ruler and ruled. Rational authority, however, is based on competence for the role it holds — it is ultimately based on consent in recognition of the expertise it may have and is otherwise based on equality. Irrational authority expects obedience and submission. Rational authority invites criticism and support based on competence. As such, authority in itself is not problematic — if it is of the rational nature.

From a Marxist perspective, a sense of humanist ethics is based on the concept of alienation. This concept can be challenging to explain in a short piece, so instead I am going to go with the formulation that the Marxist psychologist Erich Fromm coined for ease of discourse — that of biophilia.

Biophilia comes from the Greek word for life, “bio”, and “love” — it means the love of life. What is meant by this is that it is an inherent capacity of man — in the species sense — to love life, and that this is manifested in behaviours that support the healthy functioning, development and growth of life. This can manifest itself in individual, social and ecological forms.

From an individual sense, this manifests in meeting the basic necessities of life such as air, water, food and shelter, looking to maintain oneself in as healthy a form as possible through nutritious diet and exercise, but also mentally, ensuring mature development of the self — it is ultimately about ensuring the individual has the capacity for full self-realisation. From a social sense, this manifests itself in ensuring society provides the infrastructure and support necessary to enable the individual’s potential for self-realisation — no man is an island after all, and there are factors that affect an individual’s capacity for self-actualisation beyond an individual’s control. It is almost paradoxical, yet a truism, that the path to individual self-actualisation is through the social. From an ecological sense, this manifests itself in support for a healthy and biodiverse nature that provides the foundation for human life. From an interpersonal sense, this manifests itself in supporting the other in their self-realisation of realising their full potential.

From these flows the need for overcoming those obstacles that stand in the way of self-actualisation. This can be resisting temptations such as unhealthy eating habits or sedentary lifestyles or self-limiting behaviours. This can be opposing economic inequality, social systems that foster such inequality, opposition to racism, sexism, heteronormativism, colonialism, war and oppressive regimes. This can be opposing the exploitation of nature, opposing the abuse of natural resources that lead to the breakdown of ecosystems and trigger climate change. This can be opposing abusive relationships and violent tendencies. It is the contrast between “being” and “having”.

On this basis, I would argue that that which is “good” is that which is biophilic, and that which is “evil” is that which does the opposite. I propose that this is the metric by which one should determine both what is the lesser evil at the voting booth, and to inform the creation of a positive politics. Naturally, it also provides a metric by which to inform one’s individual, social and ecological actions.

As trite as this may seem, the essence of biophilia is that of love — love for oneself, love for the other, love for nature. And there is a feedback loop between these spheres — through learning to truly love oneself, one develops the capacity to truly love the other, as well as the capacity to truly love nature. The formula works in all directions: developing one’s capacity to love nature or the other inevitably leads to developing the capacity to love oneself. It is also important to recognise here that healthy love is based on respect, the etymological root of which is “to look back at” — to love oneself is to see oneself; to love the other is to see the other; to love nature is to see it, and to see oneself in all.

In the final analysis, the Beatles were right all along — all you really need is love.

• Jonathan Starling is a socialist writer with an MSc in Ecological Economics from the University of Edinburgh and an MSc in Urban and Regional Planning from Heriot-Watt University