Voting for the "lesser" of two evils

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Missing mass is a sin. Is someone who does not want to make missing mass a crime therefore pro-missing mass? What about not supporting criminalizing birth control? Adultry?

Stealing is a sin. Do you say we should not have laws against stealing?

Rape is a sin. Do you say we should not have laws against rape?

Murder is a sin. Do you say we should not have laws against murder?

Or here’s a good one - is someone who does not support a legal ban on torture pro-torture?

Torture is already banned – to pretend that somehow it isn’t is simply fatuous.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Zerith:

Move to a country with more [major] political parties… Closest being Canada?

It isn’t easier here. We are in the middle of a real cliff hanger election.

The Conservative Party has a lot to answer for historically in terms of the plight of the poor, education, health care. However it is the only party among the big four (Liberal, New Democratic (socialist), and Green) that is remotely understandable vis a vis the traditional definition of marriage.

We have the Christian Heritage Party, but they are not running candidates in every riding. They are also Evangelical, not Catholic.

The Conservatives have a chance of winning, but I am not sure I trust them.

I talked to my Conservative candidate the other day and said that I understand that the recriminalizing of abortion (it’s complicated) might not be the best immediate move to make. But I made him promise that he would make sure Dr Henry Morgentaler would not get the Order of Canada. And he did. In a very confusing and frustrating country, this is good enough for me for the next wee while.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seabird3579:

Why do we as Catholics find it so hard to vote for or form a new party that is 100% pro-life and represents other Catholic ideals?

I dunno. I wish there was one and sometimes in my more tired and unrealistic moments I fantasize starting one myself. But I really don’t have the background to seriously run for office.

 

[seabird3579]

Philip P:

And that’s the bottom line, isn’t it? Each person must vote according to the dictates of his or her conscience. Not Philip P’s conscience. Not Mark L’ Chance’s conscience. Not Vern Humphrey’s conscience. Their own conscience.

You are completely misguided. Your quote is a good example of the moral relativism that Pope Benedict is speaking of. Yes, we must be guided by our consciences, BUT it must be by a “well-formed” conscience. A well-formed conscience follows the teachings of the Church, it is not subject to each individual’s whims or “feelings” of conscience. It is something solid, formed by the teachings of the Church. Anything else is only a rationalization – or moral relativism.

Unfortunately, we can stubbornly prefer our wills and call it our conscience, but we would only be deceiving ourselves and those who buy into moral relativism.

 

[Philip_P]

seabird3579:

Your quote is a good example of the moral relativism that Pope Benedict is speaking of.

If I were arguing that abortion is wrong for some people but fine for others, that would be moral relativism. That’s not what I’m arguing.

Instead, I’m arguing two things: 1)abortion and voting are two separate acts and 2)voting needs to be approached via the traditional Catholic moral analysis of act, intention, and circumstances.

First, the act. In the case of abortion, it is intrinsically wrong. Were I, or anyone else, to argue otherwise, we could justifiably be accused of moral relativism. Voting, however, is not intrinsically wrong. It is morally neutral. We must look at the next two steps to determine its moral status.

We therefore move on to intention. Your position collapses “voting for a candidate who does not support criminalizing abortion” into “intending that there be more abortions.” This is wrong on two counts. One, real-world experience shows that electing candidates who do not criminalize abortion does not mean there will be more abortions. In 1992 and 1996, Americans elected such a candidate, yet abortion rates went down. The one-to-one correlation you have posited does not hold up. Two – who are you to claim to be able to read a voter’s intentions?

Finally, there is circumstances. The pro-life credibility of the opposing candidate is part of circumstances. The likely result of electing a candidate is part of circumstances. Results matter, yet your position ignores this.

When I say “voting is governed by the individual conscience,” then, I am not claiming moral relativism. Rather, I am acknowledging the limits of human knowledge. None of us can claim to know the intentions of a voter, or claim certainty of the future (which goes to circumstances). Yet intention and circumstances must be considered in moral analysis. Your position obliterates such fundamental moral considerations and claims certainty and knowledge you cannot possibly have.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

If I were arguing that abortion is wrong for some people but fine for others, that would be moral relativism. That’s not what I’m arguing.

No. You are wrong in your definition of Moral Relativism.

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.

Philip P:

Instead, I’m arguing two things: 1)abortion and voting are two separate acts and 2)voting needs to be approached via the traditional Catholic moral analysis of act, intention, and circumstances.

And in the process saying we have no responsibility to deal with abortion.
Philip P:

First, the act. In the case of abortion, it is intrinsically wrong. Were I, or anyone else, to argue otherwise, we could justifiably be accused of moral relativism. Voting, however, is not intrinsically wrong. It is morally neutral. We must look at the next two steps to determine its moral status.

Nobody argues that voting is not morally neutral – just as nobody argues that driving a car is not morally neutral.

But drinking and driving is immoral, and voting for pro-abortion politicians is immoral.

Those Catholics who consider themselves Democrats have a moral obligation to clean up their party and get rid of the pro-abortion candidates.
Philip P:

We therefore move on to intention. Your position collapses “voting for a candidate who does not support criminalizing abortion” into “intending that there be more abortions.”

Voting for the candidate who openly supports “pro-choice” is indeed voting for the candidates who intends there to be more abortions.
Philip P:

This is wrong on two counts. One, real-world experience shows that electing candidates who do not criminalize abortion does not mean there will be more abortions. In 1992 and 1996, Americans elected such a candidate, yet abortion rates went down. The one-to-one correlation you have posited does not hold up. Two – who are you to claim to be able to read a voter’s intentions?

You cherry-pick your data. We have reached the saturation point in abortions, so things other than its legal status influence the numbers in any one year.

If you dispute that, tell me what the candidates of 1992 and 1996 did to reduce the number of abortions?
Philip P:

Finally, there is circumstances. The pro-life credibility of the opposing candidate is part of circumstances. The likely result of electing a candidate is part of circumstances. Results matter, yet your position ignores this.

Indeed they do – and having a pro-abortion plank in a national party is a result that matters.
Philip P:

When I say “voting is governed by the individual conscience,” then, I am not claiming moral relativism.

Everything you’ve said so far could be condensed into “there is no absolute standard of right and wrong.”
Philip P:

Rather, I am acknowledging the limits of human knowledge. None of us can claim to know the intentions of a voter, or claim certainty of the future (which goes to circumstances).

Now **that **is pure relativism. A candidate who votes pro-abortion is wrong. Period.
Philip P:

Yet intention and circumstances must be considered in moral analysis. Your position obliterates such fundamental moral considerations and claims certainty and knowledge you cannot possibly have.

And your argument exotls moral relatvism above the teachings of the Church.

 

[seabird3579]

Once again, I’ve got to go with Vern. He said precisely what I would have said, only better.

Moral Relativism is a Fog that has managed to seep into every aspect of American life like a cancerous tumor, at first it is barely detectable, then before you know, it has metastisized and its hard to tell what was there before it started growing.

Moral Clarity is the direct opposite of Moral Relativism. Pope Benedict is just what the “Doctor” ordered for today’s world, his clarity of mind, morals and dogma will stir us through this fog and into a new dawn.

God Bless and Long Live Pope Benedict XVI !!! We love you, Holy Father! :tiphat:

 

[Philip_P]

seabird3579:

Once again, I’ve got to go with Vern. He said precisely what I would have said, only better.

Moral Relativism is a Fog that has managed to seep into every aspect of American life like a cancerous tumor, at first it is barely detectable, then before you know, it has metastisized and its hard to tell what was there before it started growing.

Moral Clarity is the direct opposite of Moral Relativism. Pope Benedict is just what the “Doctor” ordered for today’s world, his clarity of mind, morals and dogma will stir us through this fog and into a new dawn.

God Bless and Long Live Pope Benedict XVI !!! We love you, Holy Father! :tiphat:

I’ve shown how my position is not moral relativism. Vern’s reply was basically “yes it is.” Hardly a convincing argument.

What would be convincing is if he were to use the act-intent-circumstances model (in other words, use Catholic moral reasoning) to show how my position is relativistic.

Let’s see if he’s up to the challenge.

(others are free to take this challenge too).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I’ve shown how my position is not moral relativism. Vern’s reply was basically “yes it is.” Hardly a convincing argument.

What would be convincing is if he were to use the act-intent-circumstances model (in other words, use Catholic moral reasoning) to show how my position is relativistic.

It’s much simpler than you pretend. Your position can be summed up as “Sometimes wrong is right. Depending on the circumstances.”

That’s moral relativism – no matter how you disguise it.

 

[seabird3579]

Despite those who stubbornly refuse to accept them, the FACTS remain — Abortion is murder, IT is a Sin, and politicians who promote the pro-choice agenda are in Direct Conflict with the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

End of Story.

Those who vote for politicians who promote a “pro-choice” agenda are defying church teachings. They should not present themselves for communion because, in fact, they are out of communion with the Church.

Now it could be Philip P is mistaking his position on abortion for culpability. Those culpable for a minor’s abortion would be the doctor, the parents if pressuring the minor, and society as a whole for sanctioning abortion as an option. However, an adult is culpable, although All with the right humility of heart can be forgiven and healed. This, however, would never justify voting for a pro-abort candidate.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Vern, do your ballots have a space to write in a candidate who is not officially running?

For instance, in a constituency where all the candidates are pro-abortion, can you write in a protest candidate such as Pope Benedict, Bishop Olmsted, Fr Pavone, or Bishop Henry?

Also, in a constituency where all the candidates are pro-abortion, what is the most morally licit manner of voting?

1. for the candidate who supports pro-life stances other than anti-abortion?
2. no vote at all.
3. spoiling one’s ballot with a write-in candidate such as the ones I have listed above?

I am interested in having a cogent answer because we are in the middle of an election up here in the Troo North.

 

[Philip_P]

Enough with the lazy moral analysis. Invoking “moral relativism” is not some magic phrase that does your moral thought for you. Use the act-intention-circumstances model to show how my position is relativistic; then maybe we can have something to discuss. If you can’t do so, then this discussion has simply become the exchange of pejorative labels, which is pointless.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

As for voting being morally neutral.

On what planet?

In the real world, voting is never morally neutral. Why? Because one votes for what a candidate stands for, for what a candidate is likely to bring about – regardless of what the candidate promises.

When a candidate says that he/she is for a woman’s ‘right to privacy’, then likely we are going to see tens of millions more murdered babies in the next four years. That is a reasonable assumption.

If all things were equal, then voting might be morally neutral. If all the candidates stood for the same thing and that thing was morally licit, then voting might be morally neutral.

But all things are not equal. All the candidates do **not **stand for the same thing. And the things for which some candidates stand are not morally licit. Abortion, for example, is not morally licit. Performing abortions, aiding and abetting abortions, promoting abortions, looking the other way while abortions are performed, pretending that voting for pro-abortion candidates is OK: none of these acts are morally licit.

Moreover – in your country and in mine – what candidates do stand for are radically divergent moral positions. Voting in the real world, therefore, is not morally neutral. And the real world is the world in which we find ourselves.

Voting for a candidate who supports abortion is – in Catholic terminology – remote material collaboration in a manifest evil.

No amount of excuses concerning the War on Poverty, the Peace movement, Universal Health Care, and so on can transform a morally illicit act – such as voting for a pro-abortion candidate – into a morally licit act.

Some Catholics may not be comfortable voting for Republicans or in Canada, Conservatives. **But who said being Catholic is about being comfortable? **

I’m voting Conservative. I don’t like it. I’m not comfortable. I think the Conservative party in Canada has a lot to answer for. But the Conservative candidate in my riding is the only one I for whom my vote counts as a morally licit act. And that is the bottom line in my Catholic walk.

 

[vern_humphrey]

seabird3579:

Despite those who stubbornly refuse to accept them, the FACTS remain — Abortion is murder, IT is a Sin, and politicians who promote the pro-choice agenda are in Direct Conflict with the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

End of Story.

Those who vote for politicians who promote a “pro-choice” agenda are defying church teachings. They should not present themselves for communion because, in fact, they are out of communion with the Church.

Now it could be Philip P is mistaking his position on abortion for culpability. Those culpable for a minor’s abortion would be the doctor, the parents if pressuring the minor, and society as a whole for sanctioning abortion as an option. However, an adult is culpable, although All with the right humility of heart can be forgiven and healed. This, however, would never justify voting for a pro-abort candidate.

There is another point – politicians like Kennedy, Kerry and Pelosi, who present themselves as Catholics and who support abortion also bring grave scandal on the Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

Vern, do your ballots have a space to write in a candidate who is not officially running?

Yes – although it isn’t a constitutional requirement.
Ani Ibi:

For instance, in a constituency where all the candidates are pro-abortion, can you write in a protest candidate such as Pope Benedict, Bishop Olmsted, Fr Pavone, or Bishop Henry?

I usually write in my own name – if you want something really screwed up, you gotta screw it up yourself.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Ani Ibi:

Also, in a constituency where all the candidates are pro-abortion, what is the most morally licit manner of voting?

1. for the candidate who supports pro-life stances other than anti-abortion?
2. no vote at all.
3. spoiling one’s ballot with a write-in candidate such as the ones I have listed above?

I am interested in having a cogent answer because we are in the middle of an election up here in the Troo North.

Not voting or spoiling your ballot is an act of political self-castration. It accomplishes nothing (witness the Sunnis who boycotted the first votes in Iraq.)

Voting for the lesser of two evils is exactly what is indicated here – and telling both parties why you voted the way you did.

However, the parable of the skydiver applies here – if you act before you get yourself in a predicament, you are better off. Think about joining a party, recruiting pro-life candidates, raising money for them, and working for their win in the primary and the general election.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Enough with the lazy moral analysis.

Enough with the rationalization and pretense.
Ani Ibi:

Invoking “moral relativism” is not some magic phrase that does your moral thought for you. Use the act-intention-circumstances model to show how my position is relativistic; then maybe we can have something to discuss. If you can’t do so, then this discussion has simply become the exchange of pejorative labels, which is pointless.

You remind me of the guy who said, "Show me in the Gospels where bishops are mentioned."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

Since you want it, Phillip, here it is:

First the act. The act is supporting pro-abortion politicians – people who want to increase the availability of abortion by paying for it with tax dollars (as one example.)
Second the intention. The intention is to support a politician who is pro-abortion. You can’t vote for someone and say, “Gee! I didn’t know he was pro-abortion!”

Third, the circumstances. The circumstances are that on average between 3,000 and 4,000 innocent children are murdered every day in this country. There are politicians who support and approve of that, and who want to use taxpayer money to pay for more abortions. There are also politicians who say they are Catholic and take pro-abortion positions – causing great scandal to the Church.

And there is one more point – your tap dance to find justification for your act (rationalization.) You keep pretending that pro-choice is not pro-abortion. That’s like saying being White is not being Caucasian.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It’s true. Being “pro-choice” does not absolutely consign one to a “pro-abortion” position. There are some individuals who claim to be “personally opposed but…”. But noting that the two positions of “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” are not strictly congruent terms does not change the fact that they are practically the same. That’s because the “but” crowd is either pro-abortion in disguise or simply too dumb to understand what it is saying.

If an individual is personally opposed to abortion, one can reasonably assume it has something to do with the fact that abortion is taking the life of an innocent human. Of course, there is a remote possibility that the opposition is centered upon the mental and physical detriment to the mother (which I’ve never heard voiced as the primary issue) or an even remoter chance that the candidate is personally opposed to all actions that begin with the letter “a” or other such nonsense. In the latter case, the candidate would be a complete idiot. But neither opposition seems either likely or actually instantiated in the current political order. This leaves us with candidates like John Kerry who said he believes abortion is killing a child yet should still be legal. That position is moronic. I conclude that either the candidate is too stupid to realize that he is advocating legalized murder or else he thinks I’m too stupid to realize he’s advocating it. In one case, he’s a dolt, in the other he’s a liar that, on a personal note, very much insults my intelligence. Neither type is at all fit for office.

On the issue of voting itself, recent ecclesiastical instructions have made it clear that
a) politicians who support legalized abortion are prohibited from communion, which since they are not under a specific penalty, means they are persistent, manifest grave sinners
b) Catholics may vote for such a candidate only if it represents a toleration in order to prevent larger grave evil advocated by the other candidate.

Since the issue of unjust war has been raised, let’s compare the current war with abortion. Suppose I think the current war is unjustified. Even if it is, that does not mean it could not be prosecuted in good conscience by someone who, with a well-formed conscience and perhaps privy to information I don’t have, has decided otherwise. Waging war in general does not fall into the same category as procuring abortion or assisting thereby. A strictly utilitarian analysis also reveals that the current war has, in the course of two years, led to 2000 American service deaths, and counting all Iraqi deaths (civilian, theoretically “just” defenders, and theoretically “unjust/evil” defenders or insurgents) Probably does not top 100,000 even by the most liberal estimates. In that same time period, U.S. abortion alone will have taken roughly 2.6 million lives, not to mention the abortions funded by our tax money overseas. So one situation is not clearly evil, the other is. The former situation accounts for 25 times more murders. How is that a toleration of lesser evil?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Andreas Hofer:

It’s true. Being “pro-choice” does not absolutely consign one to a “pro-abortion” position. There are some individuals who claim to be “personally opposed but…”. But noting that the two positions of “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” are not strictly congruent terms does not change the fact that they are practically the same. That’s because the “but” crowd is either pro-abortion in disguise or simply too dumb to understand what it is saying.

(My emphasis)

And that sums it up nicely.

As George Frazier MacDonald said (in the persona of his character Harry Flashman), “The Kama Sutra purports to show 105 ways to have sex, but it’s all balderdash – position 99 is the same as position 3, but you have your fingers crossed.”

I say the same about those who claim there’s any real difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion – it’s all balderdash. One is the same as the other, but you have your fingers crossed. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

However, the parable of the skydiver applies here – if you act before you get yourself in a predicament, you are better off. Think about joining a party, recruiting pro-life candidates, raising money for them, and working for their win in the primary and the general election.

Judging by Fr de Volks letter to Stephen Harper (Conservative Party leader in Canada) I gather that more Catholics than you and I are thinking along these lines.