Morality of voting "lesser of two evils"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AveOTheotokos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PelagiathePenit said:
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
Click to expand...
Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
 
RPRPsych said:
Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am not voting you know who because he is pro-life. I do not agree with his position on other issues. Because the Catholic Church is pro-life my vote should go to him automatically. No thank you.
 
Bookcat said:
When such grave evils are in the off’ing…I do not think that is that would be the right prudent approach.
Click to expand...
Using the example of Hitler and Stalin I posted earlier, would voting for Stalin (to prevent the extermination of Jews that Hitler would carry out) be something a Catholic could morally do and not be guilty of material cooperation in the evils carried out by Stalin?

Or does the culpability come not with the vote at the ballot box, but with outright support? If you don’t support them in any way but still choose to vote for them on Election Day because not voting allows an even greater evil to prevail, are you not materially cooperating?
 
PelagiathePenit said:
I am not voting you know who because he is pro-life. I do not agree with his position on other issues. Because the Catholic Church is pro-life my vote should go to him automatically. No thank you.
Click to expand...
When did this become a thread about Voldemort??? 😛
 
AveOTheotokos said:
Using the example of Hitler and Stalin I posted earlier, would voting for Stalin (to prevent the extermination of Jews that Hitler would carry out) be something a Catholic could morally do and not be guilty of material cooperation in the evils carried out by Stalin?
Click to expand...
Such is rather unrealistic example so I will take a pass.🙂

If a person were ever faced with such a like judgment they would have to make a judgment of conscience as to what to do…
 
PelagiathePenit said:
…I think the living are far more important than fetuses. How is abortion a threat to society? … Why is a fetus life so special to be protected?
Click to expand...
Out of sight, out of mind? That seems to be your thinking. I wonder if God sees it that way? How odd you continue to push for improvements in some aspects of society by denigrating the concerns shown for another. Are you not able to support two good principles at the same time?
 
Rau said:
Out of sight, out of mind? That seems to be your thinking. I wonder if God sees it that way? How odd you continue to push for improvements in some aspects of society by denigrating the concerns shown for another. Are you not able to support two good principles at the same time?
Click to expand...
I will not endorse a politician because he is pro life. I am selecting the lesser of two evils. If he does not care about healthcare, social security, or the environment. Who cares if he is pro-life or values traditional marriage? Our country is based on separation of church and state.
 
b_ulmen said:
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?
Click to expand...
The consequences of abstaining (not the outcome of the election) are foreseeable, as explained. One less vote for the better option. No lists of issues are required from the Vatican.
 
Bookcat said:
Such is rather unrealistic example so I will take a pass.🙂

If a person were ever faced with such a like judgment they would have to make a judgment of conscience as to what to do…
Click to expand...
Alas, I agree that it is unrealistic, as are the train scenarios. Real life scenarios are sometimes so morally cluttered, that using using examples that are extreme can sometimes help cut through the fog and demonstrate what we are working with.

Basically, determining right and wrong in a grey world is hard if we aren’t positive what black and white are.

If we ever faced a situation like that above though, we would be pretty bad off! Thankfully our current real world choice is not quite so dramatic.

To rephrase it in more realistic terms, would voting for Candidate B (to prevent continuing and furthering the extermination of the unborn that Candidate A would propagate) be something a Catholic could do and not be guilty of material cooperation in the evils of Candidate B?
 
PelagiathePenit said:
I will not endorse a politician because he is pro life. I am selecting the lesser of two evils. If he does not care about healthcare, social security, or the environment. Who cares if he is pro-life or values traditional marriage? Our country is based on separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
Nor will I endorse a pro life politician, but I’m happy to endorse a pro life stance. And vote for the politician offering the most good. Or the least evil.
 
Rau said:
Nor will I endorse a pro life politician, but I’m happy to endorse a pro life stance. And vote for the politician offering the most good. Or the least evil.
Click to expand...
It is difficult to vote. You must compromise somewhere
 
AveOTheotokos said:
To rephrase it in more realistic terms, would voting for Candidate B (to prevent continuing and furthering the extermination of the unborn that Candidate A would propagate) be something a Catholic could do and not be guilty of material cooperation in the evils of Candidate B?
Click to expand...
Yes that may be the good choice that is open to them in their voting.

One has to make a judgment. Seek advice even etc.

(principle of double effect can often apply).
AveOTheotokos said:
Basically, determining right and wrong in a grey world is hard if we aren’t positive what black and white are.
Click to expand...
Catechism:

1806 *Prudence *is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#1805
 
PelagiathePenit said:
…I think the living are far more important than fetuses. How is abortion a threat to society?.. Why is a fetus life so special to be protected?
Click to expand...
All life is equally special and important. The value of a human life is to be judged by God alone, as we are HIS creations. Your thoughts on the importance of a fetus vs. “the living” (which I assume you mean to say those that have been born) is irrelevant because you, nor any human is in a position to qualify the value of a human life, be they born or unborn.

“Why is a fetus life so special to be protected?” Because they are a unique creation made in the image of God, just like you and every other person on Earth. Their location and developmental progress adds a unique dependence on the good will of others, as they can not survive alone, cannot provide for themselves, cannot protect themselves.
Matthew 25:40
40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’
Click to expand...
I can’t think of any “brethren” that are more helpless and dependent than the unborn. Why are they so special? Because Jesus told us they are.
PelagiathePenit said:
Our country is based on separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is, but Catholics are not a country. We are called to make decisions based on our morals, which as Catholics, are guided by Catholic principles. Regardless of the countries morality at a given time, we must vote our conscience, which is formed by Catholic values.
 
AveOTheotokos said:
All life is equally special and important. The value of a human life is to be judged by God alone, as we are HIS creations. Your thoughts on the importance of a fetus vs. “the living” (which I assume you mean to say those that have been born) is irrelevant because you, nor any human is in a position to qualify the value of a human life, be they born or unborn.

“Why is a fetus life so special to be protected?” Because they are a unique creation made in the image of God, just like you and every other person on Earth. Their location and developmental progress adds a unique dependence on the good will of others, as they can not survive alone, cannot provide for themselves, cannot protect themselves.

I can’t think of any “brethren” that are more helpless and dependent than the unborn. Why are they so special? Because Jesus told us they are.

Indeed it is, but Catholics are not a country. We are called to make decisions based on our morals, which as Catholics, are guided by Catholic principles. Regardless of the countries morality at a given time, we must vote our conscience, which is formed by Catholic values.
Click to expand...
aren’t there more Catholic values than protecting the unborn? What about universal healthcare or caring for the environment because of global warming. I cannot vote for a person who denies global warming
 
PelagiathePenit said:
aren’t there more Catholic values than protecting the unborn? What about universal healthcare or caring for the environment because of global warming. I cannot vote for a person who denies global warming
Click to expand...
Yes, there most definitely are. We must consider all of these things.

My previous reply was just to answer your questions about fetal life importance, not to say it was the only important issue.
 
PelagiathePenit said:
aren’t there more Catholic values than protecting the unborn?
Click to expand...
Tis of the highest!

Especially with the millions that are continually aborted. And they would agree.

And it is of high importance that the next pres. will pick even several supreme court justices…
 
Bookcat said:
Yes that may be the good choice that is open to them in their voting.

One has to make a judgment. Seek advice even etc.

(principle of double effect can often apply).

Catechism:

1806 *Prudence *is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#1805
Click to expand...
Prudence is most prudent 😉

The section you highlight is definitely the key. The motivation of starting this thread was to determine what those moral principles are in regards to balancing obligation to vote to prevent great evil vs. becoming guilty of material cooperation in the misdeeds of others, and to determine how we apply them to our current election situation to do the most good without being complicit in evil.

I am struggling (and assume I’m not the only one) with feeling that no matter what the choice, it is wrong in some way. It is really great to see all the differing opinions though, as it shows this is not an easy issue
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top