Voting Dilemma

[Petergee]

Well, as you have rejected my logic, I reject yours. I can not accept and promote evil by voting for someone who supports the killing of innocent children, period. The Church is clear in her teaching, from conception to natural death all life should be allowed to live in dignity.

Both of us will have to live with our conscience and face almighty God in defense of our respective positions…

• Michael

The Church is also clear in her teaching that voters are permitted, and in fact morally obliged, to vote for a candidate who favours at least some restrictions on abortion rather than a candidate who favours fewer restrictions on it, if there is no viable candidate who would make abortion totally illegal in all cases. The Church also teaches that citizens have a moral duty to vote (if possible).

The real prudential judgment you have to make is, what is the realistic chance that the fully anti-abortion candidate will get enough votes from others to win or come close to winning, even if you do your best to encourage others to vote for him? A very difficult judgment as you need to forecast how thousands or millions of other people are going to vote.

This is why I feel very sorry for those who don’t have the preferential voting system as used in Australia (and which the UK is now preparing to introduce.) We don’t have to worry about making such judgments. We vote “1” for our most favoured candidate, “2” for our second most favoured and so on. If no one candidate gets more than 50% of the #1 votes, the second and subsequent preferences are distributed among the candidates as necessary, starting with those from the candidate with the lowest number of #1 votes, who is eliminated. That way no matter who everybody else votes for, I know that MY vote went towards the most anti-abortion of the remaining possible winners of the poll. No matter how few votes my first-preferred candidate gets, my vote will not be wasted.

I urge Americans to also press their politicians to introduce the much fairer and more democratic preferential voting system (also called “Single Transferable Vote” or “Instant Run-off Vote” in some countries).

 

[Ender]

So, your logic says that I should accept a certain level of evil because its less evil than another more intense form of evil? How do you justify accepting evil? Of ANY degree?

You accept it by acknowledging that while you cannot eliminate evil you can mitigate it - and helping some is surely better than not helping at all.

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods. (USCCB - Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship)

Ender

 

[teak421]

The Church is also clear in her teaching that voters are permitted, and in fact morally obliged, to vote for a candidate who favours at least some restrictions on abortion rather than a candidate who favours fewer restrictions on it, if there is no viable candidate who would make abortion totally illegal in all cases. The Church also teaches that citizens have a moral duty to vote (if possible).

The real prudential judgment you have to make is, what is the realistic chance that the fully anti-abortion candidate will get enough votes from others to win or come close to winning, even if you do your best to encourage others to vote for him? A very difficult judgment as you need to forecast how thousands or millions of other people are going to vote.

This is why I feel very sorry for those who don’t have the preferential voting system as used in Australia (and which the UK is now preparing to introduce.) We don’t have to worry about making such judgments. We vote “1” for our most favoured candidate, “2” for our second most favoured and so on. If no one candidate gets more than 50% of the #1 votes, the second and subsequent preferences are distributed among the candidates as necessary, starting with those from the candidate with the lowest number of #1 votes, who is eliminated. That way no matter who everybody else votes for, I know that MY vote went towards the most anti-abortion of the remaining possible winners of the poll. No matter how few votes my first-preferred candidate gets, my vote will not be wasted.

I urge Americans to also press their politicians to introduce the much fairer and more democratic preferential voting system (also called “Single Transferable Vote” or “Instant Run-off Vote” in some countries).

The Church also teaches that one does not promote or do evil even if good comes from it… I can spend a few minutes finding the exact CCC section if you want, but I’m sure you’ve read it…

I simply can not with my vote promote the evil of abortion… if both candidates promote abortion (no matter what the degree) I simply can not vote for them.

I’ve not studied the voting system you folks have, sounds interesting… Cya.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

We don’t live in a perfect world.

My logic is “What will cause the least number of abortions?”

The other way of thinking, to stay home and have the other person win is the more evil option.

I respectfully disagree with you. Below is what the CCC says on the subject:

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

–
Your GOOD is LESS NUMBER OF ABORTIONS. How you arrive at that GOOD is supporting a candidate who supports policies which you feel reduces the number of an intrinsically evil act, in this case abortion. In supporting a candidate who believes in the right to destroy human life through abortion, you are supporting an intrinsically evil action and violating a clear principle laid out in the CCC… and the Natural Law of God.

• Michael

 

[Ender]

I respectfully disagree with you. Below is what the CCC says on the subject:

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

–
Your GOOD is LESS NUMBER OF ABORTIONS. How you arrive at that GOOD is supporting a candidate who supports policies which you feel reduces the number of an intrinsically evil act, in this case abortion. In supporting a candidate who believes in the right to destroy human life through abortion, you are supporting an intrinsically evil action and violating a clear principle laid out in the CCC… and the Natural Law of God.

I think this is an incorrect application of this rule; if you were correct then the principle of double effect couldn’t exist. The distinction you fail to account for is the intention of the person making the decision. The rule you cite means that one may not willingly commit an immoral act; it in no way prohibits one from doing something that has an evil effect.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent … A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action

Nowhere does the Church teach that it is better to sit by and do nothing than to fix what problems we can, even if what we can fix is small.

Ender

 

[teak421]

I think this is an incorrect application of this rule; if you were correct then the principle of double effect couldn’t exist. The distinction you fail to account for is the intention of the person making the decision. The rule you cite means that one may not willingly commit an immoral act; it in no way prohibits one from doing something that has an evil effect.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent … A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action

Nowhere does the Church teach that it is better to sit by and do nothing than to fix what problems we can, even if what we can fix is small.

Ender

The rule you cite means that one may not willingly commit an immoral act; it in no way prohibits one from doing something that has an evil effect.

So, let me get this straight… the politician who votes for and it passes, late term abortion is not willingly committing an immoral act if his “intentions” are to save the life of the mother (a good outcome)? Would that statement violate the CCC I quoted earlier?

• Michael

 

[Rascalking]

I’m in grad school as we speak, so I sort of understand people who think like you do. They (and I’m not thinking about you) take things out of context, misread, have a blind ideology, and are people who just like to feel superior or more moral. My major in college was English with a minor in philosophy, so I am surrounded with these people!

I’m much different than that. I ask simple questions and hopefully give clear and concise answers.

I want to reduce abortions. I know that some people have different views on abortion. If I hold my nose and vote for “X”, who may be mildly pro-choice or something, but is of the party that is more pro-life, I know it will work towards the goal of pro-life justices, pro-life legislation, all that jazz.

People who stay at home or vote for a third party are, simply put, for the most part, rather selfish. They do it for the pleasure of themselves and no one else.

 

[teak421]

I’m in grad school as we speak, so I sort of understand people who think like you do. They (and I’m not thinking about you) take things out of context, misread, have a blind ideology, and are people who just like to feel superior or more moral. My major in college was English with a minor in philosophy, so I am surrounded with these people!

I’m much different than that. I ask simple questions and hopefully give clear and concise answers.

I want to reduce abortions. I know that some people have different views on abortion. If I hold my nose and vote for “X”, who may be mildly pro-choice or something, but is of the party that is more pro-life, I know it will work towards the goal of pro-life justices, pro-life legislation, all that jazz.

People who stay at home or vote for a third party are, simply put, for the most part, rather selfish. They do it for the pleasure of themselves and no one else.

I’m in grad school too, Franciscan University - Theology. Goodness, who cares where you or I go!

You have made a broad over-generalization of people who hold my position: “People who stay at home or vote for a third party are, simply put, for the most part, rather selfish. They do it for the pleasure of themselves and no one else.” Have you taken a critical thinking class in your “grad” school yet? Because, that statement really shows you lack basic skills.

• Michael

 

[Rascalking]

I’m in grad school too, Franciscan University - Theology. Goodness, who cares where you or I go!

You have made a broad over-generalization of people who hold my position: “People who stay at home or vote for a third party are, simply put, for the most part, rather selfish. They do it for the pleasure of themselves and no one else.” Have you taken a critical thinking class in your “grad” school yet? Because, that statement really shows you lack basic skills.

• Michael

And your statement shows a lack of class. Cheers.

 

[teak421]

And your statement shows a lack of class. Cheers.

Class? Kidding right? You make a sweeping illogical statement about people who do not hold your view and you call my message, classless!

OK… In reviewing my message, classless no, harsh yes. The content I will continue to hold onto, but I should have done a much better job on delivery. Apologize…

• Michael

 

[teak421]

I’m in grad school as we speak, so I sort of understand people who think like you do. They (and I’m not thinking about you) take things out of context, misread, have a blind ideology, and are people who just like to feel superior or more moral. My major in college was English with a minor in philosophy, so I am surrounded with these people!

I’m much different than that. I ask simple questions and hopefully give clear and concise answers.

I want to reduce abortions. I know that some people have different views on abortion. If I hold my nose and vote for “X”, who may be mildly pro-choice or something, but is of the party that is more pro-life, I know it will work towards the goal of pro-life justices, pro-life legislation, all that jazz.

People who stay at home or vote for a third party are, simply put, for the most part, rather selfish. They do it for the pleasure of themselves and no one else.

Let me ask you something… as politely as possible. Did the above message contribute in anyway to the overall discussion? Did you ask the simple questions? Do you understand my position, etc. Can you explain where my position has not been “reasoned” out? Now, I may hold a reasonable position, but I could still be wrong…

If you want to help me learn, do what you suggest in your message… ask the simple questions, learn about my position and THEN see if I’m one of those “selfish” types you list above…

• Michael

 

[Rascalking]

Apologize…

• Michael

Great. I apologize as well. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.

 

[teak421]

Great. I apologize as well. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.

Okies… Have a great weekend!

 

[Yeoman]

Well, after reading all of these, I’m inclined to vote for the independent, even though he has next to no chance.

Morally defensible position?

 

[Ender]

The rule you cite means that one may not willingly commit an immoral act; it in no way prohibits one from doing something that has an evil effect.

So, let me get this straight… the politician who votes for and it passes, late term abortion is not willingly committing an immoral act if his “intentions” are to save the life of the mother (a good outcome)? Would that statement violate the CCC I quoted earlier?

You need to see things with a bit more subtlety. The principle of double effect is not something I invented, it is something the Church teaches. In your example, the politician who supports late term abortion sins, regardless of his motive, because his action is intrinsically immoral, but this example is nothing like the issue under discussion. Do you reject the statement I made above? Do you consider it an incorrect interpretation of 1737?

This comment is from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document titled “Declaration on Procured Abortion”:

*“It is true that civil law cannot expect to cover the whole field of morality or to punish all faults. No one expects it to do so. It must often tolerate what is in fact a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater one.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

*This is all the debate is about: tolerating a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater one and the Church understands there are times when it is appropriate to do so.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Well, after reading all of these, I’m inclined to vote for the independent, even though he has next to no chance.

Morally defensible position?

There are times when voting for a candidate with no chance of being elected makes sense - when there really is no significant difference between the major party candidates - but I suspect those times are few and far between. Usually, however, casting a protest vote is futile. It may be emotionally satisfying but it does nothing to mitigate in even a small way the real problems that society faces. Talk to someone who voted third party in the last election and ask how satisfied they are now with their actions then.

Ender

 

[Yeoman]

There are times when voting for a candidate with no chance of being elected makes sense - when there really is no significant difference between the major party candidates - but I suspect those times are few and far between. Usually, however, casting a protest vote is futile. It may be emotionally satisfying but it does nothing to mitigate in even a small way the real problems that society faces. Talk to someone who voted third party in the last election and ask how satisfied they are now with their actions then.

Ender

My choices then would boil down to the “personally opposed to abortion between a woman and her doctor, etc.” and pro choice. Not much of a difference there.

To add to it further, to vote for the GOP candidate I’ll have to hold my nose and vote, as I otherwise have problems with him. The Dem appears to be a flat out no go.

Funny thing is that this is what we get here every election, and we’re one of the most conservative places in the country, sort of.

 

[teak421]

You need to see things with a bit more subtlety. The principle of double effect is not something I invented, it is something the Church teaches. In your example, the politician who supports late term abortion sins, regardless of his motive, because his action is intrinsically immoral, but this example is nothing like the issue under discussion. Do you reject the statement I made above? Do you consider it an incorrect interpretation of 1737?

This comment is from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document titled “Declaration on Procured Abortion”:

*“It is true that civil law cannot expect to cover the whole field of morality or to punish all faults. No one expects it to do so. It must often tolerate what is in fact a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater one.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html*

This is all the debate is about: tolerating a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater one and the Church understands there are times when it is appropriate to do so.

Ender

Ender,

The congressperson’s abortion vote (collective with other members of congress) is immoral, but your vote (collective with other members of society) that allowed that Congressperson to vote for abortion gets you a free pass? Huh?

• Michael

 

[Ender]

My choices then would boil down to the “personally opposed to abortion between a woman and her doctor, etc.” and pro choice. Not much of a difference there.

No, as George Wallace used to say “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them.”

To add to it further, to vote for the GOP candidate I’ll have to hold my nose and vote, as I otherwise have problems with him. The Dem appears to be a flat out no go.

If you look solely at the results of this one race you might easily decide to vote for neither one. If, however, you look at what the parties are doing in Washington you would have to admit that there is surely a significant difference in the laws that are passed depending on which party is in power. This is not an insignificant consideration.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The congressperson’s abortion vote (collective with other members of congress) is immoral, but your vote (collective with other members of society) that allowed that Congressperson to vote for abortion gets you a free pass? Huh?

You so far have simply refused to deal with the issue I’ve raised. Your response here is another example of that. It is moral to make the best of a bad situation even if the best isn’t very good. I have cited the Catechism and a Church document to make the point that sometimes it is acceptable to choose the lesser of two evils and to do things that have double effects - one bad and the other good. This is what the Church teaches and you ought to at least try to understand those points. Restating the issue in a way that changes the point under discussion is an evasion, not a response.

Ender