The concept of political obligation has been a central debate in political philosophy for centuries, focusing on why individuals ought to obey the state. One argument that has gained attention in recent political theory is the lesser evil argument, which posits that citizens have an obligation to support or obey the state when it is the lesser of two evils. This paper explores both the case for and against the lesser evil argument as a basis for political obligation. By analyzing its implications in terms of ethical theory, practical application, and moral limitations, we aim to assess its viability in justifying political obedience and loyalty in the context of modern democratic governance.