Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zz912 said:
There are 3,920,000 (98% x 1,000,000 x 4yrs) babies who would disagree with you if they could. But they have been killed while you quibble over Romney’s relatively minor failings compared to Obama.
Click to expand...
How does this consideration fall in the Consequentialism vs Deontological Ethics spectrum? It seems you are coming down on the side of Consequentialism (i.e. ends justify the means).
 
ishii said:
You can be wrong when you don’t effectively oppose evil.

Ishii
Click to expand...
How to effectively oppose evil is certainly a debatable subject, which of course is where prudential judgment comes into play.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
How does this consideration fall in the Consequentialism vs Deontological Ethics spectrum? It seems you are coming down on the side of Consequentialism (i.e. ends justify the means).
Click to expand...
Wrong. He is opposing the killing of innocent human beings rather than voting for candidates who support the killing of innocent human beings.
 
What we often see is people who duck the hard decisions about voting for a less than perfect candidate, throw their vote away on a non viable candidate and them sit on the sidelines criticizing those who actually made the difficult decision to support a candidate who supports a miniscule number of abortions. Of the 1.2 million children aborted a year less than 12,000 are done for reasons of rape or incest.

Archbishop Chaput addressed this directly-he said voting for the candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape and incest over the candidate who supports unrestricted abortion is NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. it is voting to lessen evil
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Wrong. He is opposing the killing of innocent human beings rather than voting for candidates who support the killing of innocent human beings.
Click to expand...
Actually, in this case we are talking about voting for a candidate who supports the killing of innocent human beings over the voting for a candidate who is against that.
 
ishii said:
I would argue that voting for the 3rd party candidate is to not effectively oppose the pro-abortion Democrat candidate.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn’t. But it does allow one to duck the difficult decisions we have to make when we don’t have the perfect candidate and then criticize everyone who didn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.
 
estesbob said:
What we often see is people who duck the hard decisions about voting for a less than perfect candidate, throw their vote away on a non viable candidate and them sit on the sidelines criticizing those who actually made the difficult decision to support a candidate who supports a miniscule number of abortions. Of the 1.2 million children aborted a year less than 12,000 are done for reasons of rape or incest.

Archbishop Chaput addressed this directly-he said voting for the candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape and incest over the candidate who supports unrestricted abortion is NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. it is voting to lessen evil
Click to expand...
But Archbishop Chaput is wrong. Romney’s position is evil. It is just a lesser evil than Obama.
 
estesbob said:
Of course it doesn’t. But it does allow one to duck the difficult decisions we have to make when we don’t have the perfect candidate and then criticize everyone who didn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.
Click to expand...
I actually did not criticize anyone who voted for Romney. I have maintained all along that one could morally vote for Romney. I just pointed out the truth about Romney. The truth is that he supports murder. Nobody has disputed that. Although some seem to not like the truth when it is pointed out.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I actually did not criticize anyone who voted for Romney. I have maintained all along that one could morally vote for Romney. I just pointed out the truth about Romney. The truth is that he supports murder. Nobody has disputed that. Although some seem to not like the truth when it is pointed out.
Click to expand...
And peoples insistence on a “pure” candidate help perpetuate the murder
 
stinkcat_14 said:
That is actually far from clear. Are you saying that if I changed my vote, Romney would have won?
Click to expand...
If Enough people who claim to be pro-life but threw their votes away on nonviable candidates or did not voted all had voted for Romney he might very well have won
 
estesbob said:
If Enough people who claim to be pro-life but threw their votes away on nonviable candidates or did not voted all had voted for Romney he might very well have won
Click to expand...
What is your estimate of the number who you claim: “threw their votes away”?
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Wrong. He is opposing the killing of innocent human beings rather than voting for candidates who support the killing of innocent human beings.
Click to expand...
A better example of Consequentialism vs Deontological Ethics would be if there were an ideal 3rd party pro-life candidate who is polling in the single digits (for some reason). Consequentialism would say that it is better to vote for Romney than the 3rd party candidate who has little chance of winning because the latter would give the election to Obama, which is a worse outcome. But Deontological Ethics would say that the act of voting for the ideal candidate is morally the best regardless of the outcome.

Even if there was no such choice in 2012, the discussion that focuses exclusively on comparing outcomes rather than the inherent moral value of the act is a lot closer to Consequentialism than to Deontological Ethics.
 
NOTICE

This thread is wandering, please return to the topic of the original post
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top