Morality of voting "lesser of two evils"?

[b_ulmen]

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.

This outcome can’t be foreseen so how would the decision be considered immoral? Retroactively? Seems a little hokey that my action at the time was without sin suddenly becomes a sinful act when forces beyond my control contribute after the fact.

Unless and until the Vatican or USCCB publishes a list of non-negotiables that clearly indicate what behavior/action/stance is verboten to support how can anyone be honestly held liable for sinning (in the sense of voting/not voting)?

Of course the challenge with this little gem would be that not one single person running for national office would ever meet the criteria. Which is why we get the “lesser of 2 evils” garbage.

Support of evil whether a lesser or greater is still a support of evil. How much evil is ok to support? Who decides that - USCCB or The Gospels?

 

[b_ulmen]

I think voting for decades in your country for the worse of two evils is why you are in the situation you find yourself. You have abandoned God in your institutions and governmental functions.

unfortunate, but true.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I like what Bookcat has said here:

One is not voting so much for the “lesser of two evils” but voting to avoid greater evils. Voting for the good that is there and not for the evil.

It is a perspective shift focusing not on choosing one evil over another, but avoiding the greatest evil.

Still, I struggle with the idea of being guilty indirectly supporting evil even though it is not my intention.

It is often said that a vote for a third party or not voting is really just a “vote for the greater evil”. Even though you are deliberately choosing not to vote for or support that person, the inaction fails to stop that person and you are now complicit in their actions.

Basically, your refusal to support Candidate A or B out of a desire to not support either of their harmful views is you allowing the greater evil of Candidate A to prevail. By trying to do good, you are actually helping the evil.

Can not the reverse be true though when voting for Candidate B to prevent Candidate A? You try to do good by voting for Candidate B because it prevents Candidate A. However, in doing so you are providing direct support to Candidate B who you know will also bring about evil.

By not voting, you are not directly supporting either evil, but your inaction indirectly allows the evil to happen.
By voting to avoid the greater evil, you not directly supporting the evil of one, but are indirectly supporting the evil of the other.

Even though your intentions in both choices is good (preventing a greater evil in one, avoiding supporting either evil in the other) both choices still result in you knowingly allowing And being indirectly complicit in the evil that results.

So what are we to do? How do we avoid “doing evil” to bring about a good? How do we avoid being guilty of inaction while also avoiding making a “deal with the devil” by supporting some evils in order to prevent others?

Is inaction wrong if you you aren’t the one creating and controlling the circumstances? Is it then their sin and you are just refusing to partake in any part of it?

By not participating in a forced choice between two wrongs, are we not removing ourselves from the matters and concerns of this world for the benefit of our souls? Is abstaining a way for us to submit to the will of the father instead of trying to control chaos in a fallen and sinful world? Is it an act of faith and hope in him?

Or, by abstaining, are we guilty of avoiding obligations? Are we failing to do our part to prevent a great evil? Are we failing to be a Good Samaritan and instead choosing to walk by and avoid action?

I do not have a firm answer either way. And when I can’t figure out what to do, I try to imagine what Jesus would do in a similar situation. Unfortunately, in this situation, I can’t picture Jesus casting a vote for either Candidate A or B, nor can I picture him wasting his vote on someone who won’t win or not voting at all.

 

[RPRPsych]

I’m not a gun proponent. But guns don’t always kill. Sometimes they are left in a box on the shelf.
But abortion ALWAYS does. It’s not equitable at all.

Exactly. The equation of abortion with gun control or “save the environment” stuff is one of the most grievous errors made by Catholics today. Ultimately, it’s a cop-out used by those who want to impenitently vote for pro-abortion candidates.

 

[LethalMouse]

where did I say I don’t police should have guns? I am tired of people pretending like guns are not lethal weapons. The recent news has really got me thinking about how America can reduce gun violence. I just do not understand why some people are so adamant about saving the unborn while living are suffering. I think the living are far more important than fetuses. How is abortion a threat to society? I meant to say I never said the police force should not have guns. I think gun violence is more serious issue than abortion because it is hurting the living. Why is a fetus life so special to be protected?

Your implication based on your regurgitation of the BLM movement…

anywho…

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Yeah you might think this is crazy, then step back and think this is what your stance sounds like to me…

Now on the flip side if you want to advocate to get rid of lethal weapons then I wholeheartedly will agree if we alos ban rocks, trees, aluminum, iron and a bunch of other stuff…

But I ask you that when we ban all things and 10 evil people get together and create some weapons… How do we enforce the ban??? please tell me, assuming they have not killed me before you come up with an answer…

Child like thoughts are great but have a time and place.

my son said recently hearing of the shooting on the news “they should make guns super expensive like $50k or more so bad guys cant get them”

I asked him how our poor neighbors would hunt and afford the equivalent of hundreds of dollars of meat they get… “oh” he said “that is not good”

I asked him how would we have ours “Oh” he said “I thought good people…oh yeah that would not work”

He is 7, I expect simple ideas from a 7 year old…I also expect as people grow that they understand the realities of the world better.

The thing about the following is that when you have a herd of sheep if you think about it they know not why things are. Why is that fence there? why does the shepherd make us go over here? They do not know. If they are in charge they will wonder outside the fence, they will be at danger, like the sheep farm I pass to work daily, one got out of the fence and I had to avoid it with my car. It knows no better. But that sheep also does not wish to impose its will upon me.

hueysgunsight.blogspot.com/2011/02/which-are-you-sheep-wolf-sheepdogor-ram.html

 

[Monica4316]

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?

because the unborn are living and are being unjustly murdered. When a country kills its own most vulnerable, most innocent persons, that is extremely grave.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

The discussion seems to be getting derailed and is focusing on particular issues rather than the morality of choosing between evils in general or avoiding choice altogether.

 

[Bookcat]

I like what Bookcat has said here:

It is a perspective shift focusing not on choosing one evil over another, but avoiding the greatest evil.

Still, I struggle with the idea of being guilty indirectly supporting evil even though it is not my intention.

It is often said that a vote for a third party or not voting is really just a “vote for the greater evil”. Even though you are deliberately choosing not to vote for or support that person, the inaction fails to stop that person and you are now complicit in their actions.

Basically, your refusal to support Candidate A or B out of a desire to not support either of their harmful views is you allowing the greater evil of Candidate A to prevail. By trying to do good, you are actually helping the evil…

As to the first - see St. John Paul II’s encylicical on the Gospel of Life.

That is not how things work… knowing that some evils will happen in choosing the good of the better choice so as prevent greater evils is part of our fallen world. One would have to go into a long discussion of moral theology to set out all the principles involved. But largely it is the principle of double effect.

As to the second there - yes that would the way I would think - when such a grave evil faces us as in this election cycle - one really ought to not “throw away your vote” on a third party…

 

[Jeanne_S]

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.

If we don’t protect and care for nascent life,the most vulnerable among us,then it naturally folliows that we won’t care for life outside the womb.We are living this reality.The culture of death and lack of respect for all lives begins with allowing the senseless killing of precious ,innocents’ in the womb.Why is it so difficult for many to make the obvious connection?

 

[Bookcat]

The discussion seems to be getting derailed and is focusing on particular issues rather than the morality of choosing between evils in general or avoiding choice altogether.

Hence I noted:

One is not voting so much for the “lesser of two evils” but voting to avoid greater evils.

Indeed one may not “vote for evil” be it lesser or greater.

One would be voting for the good that is there and not for the evil.

And for the good of avoiding greater evils.

And will add that to “avoid choice” is to make a choice. And not the choice one ought to make in my estimation.

 

[LethalMouse]

Hence I noted:

One is not voting so much for the “lesser of two evils” but voting to avoid greater evils.

Indeed one may not “vote for evil” be it lesser or greater.

One would be voting for the good that is there and not for the evil.

And for the good of avoiding greater evils.

And will add that to “avoid choice” is to make a choice. And not the choice one ought to make in my estimation.

I might add that there are those who admit they don’t understand politics, economics etc. Some chose not to vote bc they have no idea what they are voting for.

Some have been convinced that “everybody vote”.

I disagree, a stock I own I recieved a ballot for a vote and upon throwing it out my son saw it and said “What! You have to vote!”

No I dont I said and he asked why I wouldn’t vote.

I explained that I knew not of the details of the issues and to make a GOOD decision in voting I would need to do several hours of research that I lacked time and resources for at the time.

There is always a possibility I could research the issue and still not understand it, I know many people like that, and should I read and read and still say “IDK which one is good” I should not vote.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Thank you Bookcat. I always appreciate your perspectives on the forums.

As for the discussion getting lost, perhaps it would help to shift focus off of the particular Election the US is facing.

In my first post, there is a link to an article that has some interesting perspectives and also throws out this scenario which may be helpful to frame the debate:

Think about it this way. Hitler’s views in favor of exterminating the Jews would be enough to justify voting against him (without further consideration of any of his other views), but Stalin’s opposition to the extermination of the Jews wouldn’t be enough to guarantee the Catholic vote. A truly awful public official can still be right on particular important issues.

In the above situation, could we really morally vote for Stalin to avoid Hitler, or would abstaining or voting for a (hypothetical) moral third party option be the right course of actions for a Catholic?

Or is being so concerned with all of this being too “of the world”? Should we just “leave the dead to bury their own dead” and avoid the entanglements of this world?

 

[LethalMouse]

Thank you Bookcat. I always appreciate your perspectives on the forums.

As for the discussion getting lost, perhaps it would help to shift focus off of the particular Election the US is facing.

In my first post, there is a link to an article that has some interesting perspectives and also throws out this scenario which may be helpful to frame the debate:

In the above situation, could we really morally vote for Stalin to avoid Hitler, or would abstaining or voting for a (hypothetical) moral third party option be the right course of actions for a Catholic?

Or is being so concerned with all of this being too “of the world”? Should we just “leave the dead to bury their own dead” and avoid the entanglements of this world?

If you are faced with a true thrid party ie: support the czar that was ousted and such or the political opponent of Hitler who actualy did run remembering he initially won as an elected official…

All you can do is fail. Much like if as one posters moral vaccum stances sat of a train and killing 1 or 5 people.

If there stands efforts to be made to maybe stop the train should you not try even if failure means running unknown the 1 or 5 over?

I mean let’s say you have to climb on the train and get to the front and throw something in front of it to derail it. And upon climbing you tripped and dropped a brick and now had no time to make it back to the controls. You are not evil, but you are someone who did their best to do good.

With third party for example the more who vote it gives it credence to have more vote it. There is a growing movement to vote 3rd just to make a statement. Just to give another option a chance and shake the status quo.

What happens if everyone here discussing their desire for the 3rd but their fear voted it? Maybe they lose… but maybe they have a serious percentage. Maybe the next election the 3rd choice is on the debate stage? Maybe 3 elections later there is 3 real choices?

The idea we are trapped is self induced. Mass induced but self as a unit.

 

[Bookcat]

Or is being so concerned with all of this being too “of the world”? Should we just “leave the dead to bury their own dead” and avoid the entanglements of this world?

Part of* our *vocation is to be in the world (though yes not “of” the world) and that involves being involved in politics and the duty to vote and to vote for the common good (life etc).

 

[Bookcat]

Or is being so concerned with all of this being too “of the world”? Should we just “leave the dead to bury their own dead” and avoid the entanglements of this world?

“…ought to be exercised in conformity to their specific lay vocation, which is different from that of the sacred ministry. In this regard the Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, that had such a great part in stimulating the varied collaboration of the lay faithful in the Church’s life and mission of spreading the gospel, recalls that “their own field of evangelizing activity is the vast and complicated world of politics, society and economics, as well as the world of culture, of the sciences and the arts, of international life, of the mass media. It also includes other realities which are open to evangelization, such as human love, the family, the education of children and adolescents, professional work, and suffering. The more Gospel-inspired lay people there are engaged in these realities, clearly involved in them, competent to promote them and conscious that they must exercise to the full their Christian powers which are often repressed and buried, the more these realities will be at the service of the Kingdom of God and therefore at the service of salvation in Jesus Christ, without in any way losing or sacrificing their human content but rather pointing to a transcendent dimension which is often disregarded”(76).”

From St. Pope John Paul IIs document on the vocation of the laity w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici.html

 

[AveOTheotokos]

If you are faced with a true thrid party ie: support the czar that was ousted and such or the political opponent of Hitler who actualy did run remembering he initially won as an elected official…

All you can do is fail. Much like if as one posters moral vaccum stances sat of a train and killing 1 or 5 people.

If there stands efforts to be made to maybe stop the train should you not try even if failure means running unknown the 1 or 5 over?

I mean let’s say you have to climb on the train and get to the front and throw something in front of it to derail it. And upon climbing you tripped and dropped a brick and now had no time to make it back to the controls. You are not evil, but you are someone who did their best to do good.

With third party for example the more who vote it gives it credence to have more vote it. There is a growing movement to vote 3rd just to make a statement. Just to give another option a chance and shake the status quo.

What happens if everyone here discussing their desire for the 3rd but their fear voted it? Maybe they lose… but maybe they have a serious percentage. Maybe the next election the 3rd choice is on the debate stage? Maybe 3 elections later there is 3 real choices?

The idea we are trapped is self induced. Mass induced but self as a unit.

Excellent post. The idea of doing the good that you can to stop the train(voting for a third party) or at least choosing (by not voting) neither to stoke the fires to further push the train towards the track killing five (voting candidate A) nor choosing to change tracks to kill one instead (vote if candidate B) is the struggle I am facing.

If your actions or inactions are futile and the train still kills the 5, are you morally culpable?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

“…ought to be exercised in conformity to their specific lay vocation, which is different from that of the sacred ministry. In this regard the Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, that had such a great part in stimulating the varied collaboration of the lay faithful in the Church’s life and mission of spreading the gospel, recalls that “their own field of evangelizing activity is the vast and complicated world of politics, society and economics, as well as the world of culture, of the sciences and the arts, of international life, of the mass media. It also includes other realities which are open to evangelization, such as human love, the family, the education of children and adolescents, professional work, and suffering. The more Gospel-inspired lay people there are engaged in these realities, clearly involved in them, competent to promote them and conscious that they must exercise to the full their Christian powers which are often repressed and buried, the more these realities will be at the service of the Kingdom of God and therefore at the service of salvation in Jesus Christ, without in any way losing or sacrificing their human content but rather pointing to a transcendent dimension which is often disregarded”(76).”

From St. Pope John Paul IIs document on the vocation of the laity w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici.html

Great point and reference. We must not sit out the political process because of our opposition to candidates. We must inform ourselves and others and campaign for moral principles that sanctify human life in all ways.

To clarify, when I mention choosing not to vote, I dont mean to suggest just calling it all a wash and staying home, but rather going to vote and voting for the other races, amendments, and ballot issues and only abstaining from voting on a particular race where both candidates are morally repugnant.

And I am also not advocating for any particular choice (voting, voting third party, write in, not voting). Rather, I am trying to determine the moral pros and cons of each of these actions.

 

[PelagiathePenit]

Your implication based on your regurgitation of the BLM movement…

anywho…

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Yeah you might think this is crazy, then step back and think this is what your stance sounds like to me…

Now on the flip side if you want to advocate to get rid of lethal weapons then I wholeheartedly will agree if we alos ban rocks, trees, aluminum, iron and a bunch of other stuff…

But I ask you that when we ban all things and 10 evil people get together and create some weapons… How do we enforce the ban??? please tell me, assuming they have not killed me before you come up with an answer…

Child like thoughts are great but have a time and place.

my son said recently hearing of the shooting on the news “they should make guns super expensive like $50k or more so bad guys cant get them”

I asked him how our poor neighbors would hunt and afford the equivalent of hundreds of dollars of meat they get… “oh” he said “that is not good”

I asked him how would we have ours “Oh” he said “I thought good people…oh yeah that would not work”

He is 7, I expect simple ideas from a 7 year old…I also expect as people grow that they understand the realities of the world better.

The thing about the following is that when you have a herd of sheep if you think about it they know not why things are. Why is that fence there? why does the shepherd make us go over here? They do not know. If they are in charge they will wonder outside the fence, they will be at danger, like the sheep farm I pass to work daily, one got out of the fence and I had to avoid it with my car. It knows no better. But that sheep also does not wish to impose its will upon me.

hueysgunsight.blogspot.com/2011/02/which-are-you-sheep-wolf-sheepdogor-ram.html/QUOTde sure all those things can be used as weapons. A gun is created solely to kill. This is exactly what I cannot stand about pro gun people. They try to make everything equivalent to guns. Face the facts a guns sole purpose is to kill. I would have more respect if people just owned up to that instead of pretending. You can kill more people with a gun that a knife, rock or anything made to be a weapon. I will be honest I could care less what Catholic church thinks. I will never just for a president because they are against abortion. I find more issues go be important

 

[PelagiathePenit]

I read about the knife article. I do not think it is wrong. I doubt you are person of color do not insult the blacklivesmatter movement. Perhaps they would not exist if there was a difference in the way officers approach people of color. Surely not everyone has this experience. As for abortion, I will not vote on a candidate because of his stance on abortion. More important issues. Our nation is not a Christian nation why force people to adhere to our religions rules?

 

[Bookcat]

To clarify, when I mention choosing not to vote, I dont mean to suggest just calling it all a wash and staying home, but rather going to vote and voting for the other races, amendments, and ballot issues and only abstaining from voting on a particular race where both candidates are morally repugnant.

And I am also not advocating for any particular choice (voting, voting third party, write in, not voting). Rather, I am trying to determine the moral pros and cons of each of these actions.

When such grave evils are in the off’ing…I do not think that is that would be the right prudent approach.