The same sort of thing, except that the probabilities would have to be more extreme to balance the greater seriousness of the issue. For example, if torture was 90% likely to be prohibited if I voted for B and abortion was 0.5% likely to be outlawed if I voted for A.
Just to be clear, there was nothing about probabilities in your previous statement, the one that I found reasonable.
I consider the “probability” argument pretty much a dodge; it’s a self-fulfilling proposition. You claim that nothing can be done about a problem and then work to ensure that nothing is done. About half of all Catholics regularly vote for the pro-abortion party. If they held their noses and voted against anyone who supported abortion, how many election cycles do you think it would take for candidates to recognize that supporting abortion was a losing position, and change their stance? One? Two? It is meaningless to assert that you oppose something while at the same time you actively work to enable it.
I think the argument you found to be somewhat reasonable did involve probabilities. If candidate A is only slightly more pro-life than candidate B, the probability of abortion becoming illegal if he were elected would be only slightly greater when voting for him. It was always about probabilities, either implicitly or explicitly.
This is another way in which probabilities enter the equation, and it is quite distinct from the probabilities mentioned above. In the first case we are talking about the probability of a certain politician accomplishing something once he is elected. In the second case we are talking about the probability of a certain politician being elected in the first place. Both cases are worthy of consideration. Since you already agreed the first case might be reasonable (although you may not agree with it), let us look at the second case. If my reasoning about the probability of electing a really good pro-life candidate is based on my assessment that none of my fellow Catholics will follow me, that indeed would be a dodge and a self-fulfilling proposition. If however my assessment is based on an assessment of the stated preferences of voters, many of whom are not Catholic, or even Christian, it is not so clear. In that case, a vote for a pro-life politician would be nothing more than “sending a message” of a reasonably good minority support for my position. But if “sending a message” is all I can do, I would be more effective putting my time and effort into lobbying, funding billboards, talking to my neighbors, etc. Yet none of these things are deemed obligatory. They are optional. It is odd that the one thing that is claimed to be obligatory is the thing that in some cases is the least effective in accomplishing the desired goal.
No, the one I found reasonable was the one I directly cited (#214). There was nothing about probabilities in it, either explicitly or implicitly.Those who support candidates who support same-sex marriage are in effect saying they are willing to accept the continuation of that particular evil in exchange for having their anti-torture policies enacted.
This is disappointing. I cannot recall having ever suggested there is even a possibility I might agree that probabilities are a reasonable consideration, yet you have somehow divined from my comments that this is my position. In the post to which you just responded, I called that approach a “dodge.” I’m not sure I can be any clearer.
Once again the argument is “If I can’t be sure of accomplishing something good, it’s ok not to try.” I am not a big fan of “sending messages” if there is a cost for doing so, but I will not try to justify supporting evil. It is precisely because of people who claim to believe that nothing can be done that nothing is done. Stop supporting evil. That’s a good place to start.
That would be an inappropriate application of probabilities (in my opinion) because it sets too high a standard on what is a reasonable chance of success. We all know what to do when the chances are 0 and 100%. The difficult judgement comes when the probability is somewhere in between.
You are probably thinking of monetary cost, but consider that to someone who has to “hold his nose” and vote for a particular pro-life candidate with whom he disagrees on some other issues very important to him, the sacrifice of not being able to support those other issues is a cost to that person. So you can see how voting to “send a message” does incur a significant cost.
It is not a matter of supporting evil or not supporting evil. It is a matter of which evil you will support. (Although I dispute the use of the word “support” in this context.)
There is a very minimal number of issues that involve actual evils. Currently, support of and opposition to those issues is not evenly divided between the parties, they are pretty much all supported by one and all opposed by the other; that of course is the problem.
But surely torture is one of them.
I don’t have to make the case for including anything else on the list of non-negotiables to claim that it is a matter of which evil you want to support. Not all evils are represented on that list, nor is that list billed as representing all evils.
Then I was right in saying it is more complicated than simply “not supporting evil”, since you are acknowledging that sometimes you do have to “support” some evil. However the Church does not specify that issues dealing with a greater evil must always take precedence over issues dealing with a lesser evil.
Even when the two evils in question are same-sex marriage and torture?
Torture is clearly evil. What is much less clear is the idea that anyone is actually promoting it.
It was never intended to be a list of all intrinsic evils. It was meant to list those evils that are current political issues.
This is called nitpicking. If you prefer, I will rephrase my statement to say our options are between choosing to support a great deal of evil or possibly having to support a lesser evil as the price of not having to support the greater evil.
The great evil of our time is abortion. Compared to that, waterboarding is chump change.
The current GOP frontrunner said just a few days ago that if he is president he will use torture.
I disagree, because I think Trump is clearly promoting torture. But that is beside the point. The question was not whether someone is promoting torture. The question was whether torture is an evil issue. You said there is a very minimal number of issues that involve actual evils, implying that torture was not among them. You have just now admitted that torture is clearly evil. So I guess that means torture is not an issue. But it clearly is an issue, since so many people in politics seem to be talking about it.
But you were the one who suggested that I could only consider torture if it was on the list. You said “If you believe that some other moral issue should be included on the list (e.g. torture)…” I was not referencing that list at all when I said “It is not a matter of supporting evil or not supporting evil. It is a matter of which evil you will support.” It is you that tied my comment to the list. And now you are telling me my issue is not on the list. Fine. I didn’t need for it to be on the list.
I do prefer it. It is more honest.
Trump supports the use of waterboarding. I think a strong argument can be made that this is a form of torture, but I don’t think this is quite as clear as you suggest.
Of course it is about whether someone is promoting it. It is entirely a question of whether it is a current political issue.
Until last week or so before Trump made his comment on waterboarding, this was not an issue.
Who other than Trump supports waterboarding? Who are the “many people” you refer to?
You are surprisingly difficult to communicate with. I did not say you could only consider torture if it was on the list. I said you could only consider it if it was a current political issue, which, before last week, it wasn’t.
I shall remind you of this comment in the discussion on global warming, which, by the standard you impose here, is dishonest in the extreme.
Abortion is much more than simply “one item on the list.” It is the preeminent moral issue of our day.
Your estimation of a candidate’s ability to “do anything” is determined by your own unwillingness to “do anything” to help him. You blame politicians for failing to effect changes even as you erect the obstacles that prevent them from succeeding. It somehow becomes their fault that they are unable to overcome your obstinance.
I didn’t say that my opinion on waterboarding is binding on everyone else. I would not be totally crazy to say that in my opinion it is torture, so it is clear to me. And since this came up only in reference to how I might justify my personal vote, that is all that is needed. I am not insisting that everyone else is bound to vote against Trump because he advocates torture.
If you backtrack this part of the discussion to post 222, you will see that the way you stated was “There is a very minimal number of issues that involve actual evils”. Now maybe the operative word here is “issues”, by which you meant “current political issues”. But I thought your emphasis was on whether the issues were evil. But as you see I also addressed the question of torture as a current political issue.
So if I had to vote before last week, I could not have used “torture” as a deciding issue. But last week is already in the past.
No one that I know of. And if Trump is not the nominee, I will not consider torture.
I agree, but in that case the list should have only one item on it: abortion. I am not questioning that abortion should be on the list. I am questioning if it should be given equal billing with the other four issues there.
I don’t think it is a matter of a candidate’s inability to do anything about abortion. I think it is a matter of a candidates unwillingness to even try, despite his stated platform during the election. I am thinking now of the current GOP front runner.