Morality of voting "lesser of two evils"?

[AveOTheotokos]

After reading this article, I have been deep in thought about voting:

Your Soul is Worth More Than Your Vote

When two candidates up for election are both less than desirable, must we vote for the “lesser of two evils”? Or can we vote for a third party? Or can we abstain from voting?

It is common to hear that we must vote for the “lesser of two evils”, and to abstain from voting or voting for a third party is “throwing away” our vote, or “a vote for the other side”. The catechism has this to say about our duty to vote:

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

The USCCB has released this document which outlines the policy positions of the USCCB:

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

What if both candidates are morally questionable though? Is voting for a less pro-abortion candidate moral if their other positions are immoral?

Is voting for the “lesser of two evils” something we as Catholics should be participating in, or does that make us guilty of doing “evil so that good may result from it”? The catechism tells us the following regarding morality of human acts:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Does this make voting for a third party, write in, or abstaining from voting a moral option, or are Catholics still obligated to vote to prevent the “greater of two evils” from prevailing?

I am feeling quite conflicted as to what is the most moral course of action. Pretty much every decision would leave me feeling like I made the wrong choice.

I guess my point is, as cliche as it is, what would Jesus do? If Jesus was in the modern day United States and was asked by the “scribes and Pharisees” of our time how one is to morally handle voting this year, what would he say?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I think decades of the country voting for the lesser of two evils is why we have the situation we have.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Every one of us is a sinner, including you and I. Every US President, every member of Congress has been a sinner. That does not mean that we cannot make moral choices. If we look at the moral situation in the US today, with a million abortions a year, euthanasia, the breakdown of the family, etc., we see the results of evil choices.

We do have a responsibility to make political choices. We do not vote for the lesser of two evils. We oppose Evil. The simplest way to do this is to vote for the most prolife candidate who has a chance to win. If someone comes up with some rationalization for voting pro-abort, reject that Evil influence.

 

[Rau]

OP - I don’t see the relevance of CCC1756 to the matter you are considering. I don’t believe voting for the best available candidate (even when that candidate is objectively undesirable) is an act with an *evil moral object *- which is what 1756 is addressing. One can take this as a given, noting the words in CCC2240 which you also quoted.

There is a positive obligation to play a part in the democratic process. While it may appear superficially attractive to distance oneself from a wholly unattractive array of candidates by abstaining from voting - ask yourself this question: “How do I make things better by voting for no one?” That course merely leaves the choice of successful candidate up to others, and increases the chances that a poorer choice of candidate (than would have secured your vote) will be elected. If, in this way, it is foreseeable that, by abstaining, you assist a poorer candidate to be elected, your act of abstinence is arguably immoral by virtue of their being more harm than good in the foreseeable consequences.

 

[PelagiathePenit]

I would not vote for a president solely based on their stance against abortion. Many may disagree but there are far more pressing issues. What about how this president will address race relations, gun violence, immigration, education? I find it ridiculous to vote on who is against abortion.

 

[Tomdstone]

Does this make voting for a third party, write in, or abstaining from voting a moral option, or are Catholics still obligated to vote to prevent the “greater of two evils” from prevailing?

I haven’t heard of any Church teaching that an American Catholic is forbidden under pain of sin to vote for a third party candidate. If a voter finds the Democrat or the Republican candidate unacceptable, then I see no good reason why she should not vote for someone else, whether it be a third party or a write in candidate.

 

[PelagiathePenit]

Why do people care so much about the unborn anyway? Which president will reduce poverty? What about social security? The war? Why not take care of the living?

 

[Rau]

Why do people care so much about the unborn anyway? Which president will reduce poverty? What about social security? The war? Why not take care of the living?

Could it be because so many of the unborn are murdered each year? How about we try and respect everyone, as best we can?

 

[pianistclare]

OP - I don’t see the relevance of CCC1756 to the matter you are considering. I don’t believe voting for the best available candidate (even when that candidate is objectively undesirable) is an act with an *evil moral object *- which is what 1756 is addressing. One can take this as a given, noting the words in CCC2240 which you also quoted.

There is a positive obligation to play a part in the democratic process. While it may appear superficially attractive to distance oneself from a wholly unattractive array of candidates by abstaining from voting - ask yourself this question: “How do I make things better by voting for no one?” That course merely leaves the choice of successful candidate up to others, and increases the chances that a poorer choice of candidate (than would have secured your vote) will be elected. If, in this way, it is foreseeable that, by abstaining, you assist a poorer candidate to be elected, your act of abstinence is arguably immoral by virtue of their being more harm than good in the foreseeable consequences.

Great response.
I agree.

 

[pianistclare]

Why do people care so much about the unborn anyway? Which president will reduce poverty? What about social security? The war? Why not take care of the living?

:banghead:
A country which allows a mother to murder her own child will never thrive.
Why do people not “get” the concept of KILLING?

Sorry for the derail, OP, but I couldn’t let that one just pass.

 

[PelagiathePenit]

:banghead:
A country which allows a mother to murder her own child will never thrive.
Why do people not “get” the concept of KILLING?

Sorry for the derail, OP, but I couldn’t let that one just pass.

I think living in a country where there is easy access to weapons such as a guns is more serious. Why does someone need an AR-15 in their home? Any high caliber weapon. Healthcare? If we do not care enough for the living why care so much about the unborn? We need to help the poor.

 

[PelagiathePenit]

Could it be because so many of the unborn are murdered each year? How about we try and respect everyone, as best we can?

how many people are killed from gun violence each year? What about the high medical costs for cancer patients? Many people after surviving cancer are thousands of dollars in debt?

 

[Rau]

how many people are killed from gun violence each year? What about the high medical costs for cancer patients? Many people after surviving cancer are thousands of dollars in debt?

Is any of that a reason to care less about abortion? Or just more support for my suggestion to respect everyone as best we can. You don’t promote support for a good cause by denigrating that shown for another.

 

[PelagiathePenit]

Is any of that a reason to care less about abortion? Or just more support for my suggestion to respect everyone as best we can. You don’t promote support for a good cause by denigrating that shown for another.

I cannot find a candidate that perfectly aligns with my stances. If a president cares more about abortion than fighting the gun violence in this country be obviously doesn’t care about the living. Why protect the unborn but not the living? No one even knows at what point during conception the soul enters the body.

 

[LethalMouse]

Third Party IS ALWAYS an option.

So long as people allow the system it exists… the question is however how lesser the evils??

In that are you personally more inclined to stop one of them? or vote what you want?

 

[PelagiathePenit]

Third Party IS ALWAYS an option.

So long as people allow the system it exists… the question is however how lesser the evils??

In that are you personally more inclined to stop one of them? or vote what you want?

third parties rarely win.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Vote third party in 2020.

It’s too important to assure that Hillary does not win in 2016.

 

[pnewton]

I guess my point is, as cliche as it is, what would Jesus do? If Jesus was in the modern day United States and was asked by the “scribes and Pharisees” of our time how one is to morally handle voting this year, what would he say?

We do not know, and any answer is only a reflection on the individual who is answering without any moral insight. The Church is clear that voting third party, and voting to lessen the evil are moral options. My own criteria is to weigh the difference between the two evils, and my own best guess as to the impact each “viable” candidate will have. For example, in this year, the Republican choice was beyond what I can morally accept as a minimum level of a lesser evil. In past years, I have been able to vote for the lesser of two evil.

I also consider the impact on the soul, both mine, and that of the country at large. Life issues are the number two issue for me. Eternal life issues remain at number one.

 

[Stephen_says]

I cannot find a candidate that perfectly aligns with my stances. If a president cares more about abortion than fighting the gun violence in this country be obviously doesn’t care about the living. Why protect the unborn but not the living? No one even knows at what point during conception the soul enters the body.

The child in their mother’s womb is living. The fact that we have abortion and gun violence and war in this world proves that we don’t care about ANY stage of human life.

Abortion, gun violence, truck violence, knife violence, bombing middle-eastern civilians with drones, they are all symptoms of a devastatingly sick world, but abortion is the beginning.

If we cannot care enough to stop the murder of children, it’s no wonder we don’t care about killing everyone else.

 

[DaveBj]

Every one of us is a sinner, including you and I. Every US President, every member of Congress has been a sinner. That does not mean that we cannot make moral choices. If we look at the moral situation in the US today, with a million abortions a year, euthanasia, the breakdown of the family, etc., we see the results of evil choices.

We do have a responsibility to make political choices. We do not vote for the lesser of two evils. We oppose Evil. The simplest way to do this is to vote for the most prolife candidate who has a chance to win. If someone comes up with some rationalization for voting pro-abort, reject that Evil influence.

Almost nailed it, close enough for a hearty

Until Jesus Christ comes back, we’re always going to be voting for the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils, because we’re voting for human beings, and human beings are sinners. The important thing is to vote in such a way as to ensure (as much as one vote can) that the greater or greatest of the “evils” running does not win.