Voting for the "lesser" of two evils

[seabird3579]

Philip P,

You certainly are a perplexed individual with a heavy burden, tell me, have you ever heard of “Obedience to the Magisterium”?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Nonetheless, I do think the issue of voting should be put forward in a postive formulation. I dislike the approach of “avoid the greater evil,” because I think that participating in our system of government is an intrinsic good. I would even go so far as to say that every citizen has a positive duty to vote. Thus, for me the question is “who ought you to vote for” not “who should you not vote for.” As I stated in post 15, my formulation would be “Vote for the candidate you believe will accomplish the most good”.

You’re jumping through hoops to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians.

 

[Philip_P]

seabird3579:

Philip P,

You certainly are a perplexed individual with a heavy burden, tell me, have you ever heard of “Obedience to the Magisterium”?

Because I won’t claim the authority to demand that people vote for a specific candidate?

Please review my post directly preceding this one and point out, specifically, how this is disobedience to the Magisterium. I admit that my position places a heavy burden on voters, as we therefore have a duty to really research public policy, but democracy is not easy. You are right I carry a heavy burden. All citizens in democracies do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Because I won’t claim the authority to demand that people vote for a specific candidate?

Phillip, no one has claim the authority to demand that people vote for a specific candidate. Thart’s a strawman you made up.

We say, as the Church says, pro-choice and pro-abortion politicians are not morally acceptable candidates.
Philip P:

Please review my post directly preceding this one and point out, specifically, how this is disobedience to the Magisterium. I admit that my position places a heavy burden on voters, as we therefore have a duty to really research public policy, but democracy is not easy. You are right I carry a heavy burden. All citizens in democracies do.

You said:

A voter does not have a moral duty to vote for a program he or she believes is not feasible.

The Church holds that pro-choice and pro-abortion politicians are not morally acceptable candidates.

 

[seabird3579]

To follow Philip P’s “logic” we should not bother to make murder or stealing illegal because, as you know, the murder and the theft will continue… :whacky:

 

[vern_humphrey]

seabird3579:

To follow Philip P’s “logic” we should not bother to make murder or stealing illegal because, as you know, the murder and the theft will continue… :whacky:

It’s interesting to watch the process, though. The struggle to maintain the position that we can vote for pro-murder politicians after all, because, hey, you can’t eliminate murder by passing a law against it. That gives an insight into the thought processes of how this grisly crime continues to be committed.

 

[Leontes]

Western society is becoming increasingly secular, while some parts of Asia are becoming more fundamentally religious (I refer to Islamism ).

So, with abortion, with gay marriage, and some other issues, the issues are on a track, and are not likely to be derailed.

At this point, the best chance for preventing abortion is personal education. Political activism is not likely to accomplish much, in my opinion.

On a personal level, each person should vote his or her conscience.

 

[buffalo]

On a personal level, each person should vote his or her conscience.

The issue is consciences are not fully formed.

 

[Leontes]

The issue is consciences are not fully formed.

Impossible to say with any certainty. If you look at the odds, with thousands of religions out there, and the well established observation that morality often precedes religion in societies, it would be unrealistic to posit the Catholic view as the only potentially legitimate view. We live in a diverse society. Anyone who wants to live in a Catholic state should go and live in the Vatican, as that is the last such place.

However, there are religious communities, too.

 

[buffalo]

Impossible to say with any certainty. If you look at the odds, with thousands of religions out there, and the well established observation that morality often precedes religion in societies, it would be unrealistic to posit the Catholic view as the only potentially legitimate view. We live in a diverse society. Anyone who wants to live in a Catholic state should go and live in the Vatican, as that is the last such place.

However, there are religious communities, too.

One must seek and find which religion has the fullness of truth. They cannot be opposed and all correct.

 

[Leontes]

One must seek and find which religion has the fullness of truth. They cannot be opposed and all correct.

We might agree on that, depending on what you mean exactly. You might not disagree with the point of view, though, that there are some universal truths, which are common to all the major religions. There is some common ground. The friction comes in the details, and its implementation. Islamism (as opposed to Islam), is having some implementation problems right now, by embracing terrorism in some cases, and often embracing extremism. Before we are too critical, we might remember where Christianity has been in the not too distant past.

 

[buffalo]

We might agree on that, depending on what you mean exactly. You might not disagree with the point of view, though, that there are some universal truths, which are common to all the major religions. There is some common ground. The friction comes in the details.

Yes - there are truths that man can come to know through reason and some religions do contain them.

Say someone just dropped in on earth and had to go about finding the one that possesses the most truth - which one do you think would be closest to truth?

 

[Leontes]

Yes - there are truths that man can come to know through reason and some religions do contain them.

Say someone just dropped in on earth and had to go about finding the one that possesses the most truth - which one do you think would be closest to truth?

I am not expert enough to answer that question, plus it presupposes that I know some standard of truth by which to measure all religious systems. Far from it.