Voting for Presidential Candidates, Intrinsically Evil Acts, and Proportionality
I know I’ve been over this point many times before, but it’s an important one. According to reports, the USCCB draft voting guide (which I discussed last week) will list a specific number of intrinsically evil acts, that cannot be justified by appeal to intent or consequence. These are: abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, racism, torture, genocide, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war. Now, the standard Catholic argument for voting Republican centers on the abortion issue, in its intrinsically evil (or non-negotiable) nature. The non-negotiability of abortion extends to the act of voting too, so voting for a pro-abortion candidate can never be justified. In previous posts, I tried to show that this line of reasoning was flawed, but let’s assume, for present purposes, that it is true. Where does that leave us?
In other words, let us assume that a Catholic cannot vote for any candidate who supports an intrinsically evil act. You can see where I am going here, based on the above list. Between all candidates on both sides and their position on each of the issues (especially abortion and torture), it pretty much leaves Ron Paul, and possibly John McCain. We all know where the Democrats stand, in zombie-like fashion, on abortion. We also know that the leading Republicans support torture. The positions of Giuliani and Romney were clear to me, but it seems that newcomer Thompson shares their stance, declaring that “you have to do what is necessary to get the information that you need”.
What about the position that since abortion is worse than torture, it is still justifiable to vote for one of these Republicans, as the “lesser of two evils”. Well, no. The problem is by assuming that certain positions are non-negotiable even from the point of view of voting, you are backing yourself against a wall. Making such a moral judgement– choosing the lesser of two intrinsically evil acts– is an exercise in proportionalism, a mode of reasoning condemned explicitly by the Church, most forcefully in Veritatis Splendour. You are directly choosing one form of evil to avoid a greater evil, and you can’t do that. Zippy has been making this point for a long time now — he argues that modern democracy “is a vast training ground for generations of proportionalists and consequentialists: a ritualistic reinforcement of modernist moral relativism practiced on a vast scale, wherein choosing the lesser of multiple evils is viewed as a social duty.”
It seems we have two conclusions. One, accept there are certain non-negotiables when it comes to voting and avoid proportionalism. That inevitably would lead Catholics to separate themselves from the political process, especially since it is difficult (if not impossible) to restrict the number of non-negotiables to some arbitrary number. Second, accept that the act of voting itself is not choosing evil, if you do not share the intent of the person you vote for when it comes to the particular non-negotiable in question. I certainly favor the second option, given that we are called to participate in public life. But where does that leave us as moral agents?
Comments are closed.
Does that mean you’d vote for Dick Cheney if he ran for President? After all, you wouldn’t share his intent on his policies toward the war and torture.
Also, I thought you said that intent, or lack of intent shouldn’t matter when choosing right and wrong?
Since the definition of voting is indeed choosing someone to represent you and your beliefs how can you then divorce yourself from the evil that their policies might entail, especially when those policies are a direct result of them being in office, having voted there by you?
Relax. It’s much worse than we think: It is perfectly conceivable to me that a public servant could desire to outlaw abortion, have the legal power to do so, or even succeed in outlawing abortion, and yet in the long term be detrimental to the pro-life cause. How so?
Because public servants and their pundits in the media have power to shape public philosophy, the philosophical views of a public servant are very worth considering. So consider a public servant who objects to abortion, would outlaw it through the land, yet on other issues, would defend and promote a consequentialist ethic. Now imagine such a public servant comes to power and both outlaws abortion and successfully promotes a consequentialist ethos. In the short term, yes, abortion is made illegal, but if a consequentialist ethos pervades in society, legal protections of the unborn are not long for the world. Abortion is likely to be legalized even in a society where 90% of people see abortion as evil, if the majority of people think certain circumstances justify doing evil. A public figure can promote abortion by promoting bad philosophy, even if he wants to outlaw the particular practice.
Voting guides can be helpful, but because the “non-negotiable” issues do not exist in a vacuum, the public servant who would outlaw an intrinsically evil act may further its perpetuation more than the public servant who would keep the act legal.
So where does this dismal reality leave us Catholic voters?
After all the political food fights, arm twisting, manipulation of votes under threat of eternal damnation and voter guides put out by every Tom Dick & Harry other than the USCCB, it will make no difference who occupies the white house in Jan’09. The democrats will pick up many seats in congress due to the large number of republican lame ducks and current mood of the electorate. There will be a democrat controlled house and senate for the foreseeable future. You could put Karl Keating, B-1 Bob Dornan or Ann Coulter in the white house and they could not get another conservative like Roberts or Alieto on the bench. It’s non negotiable.
There is one logical fallacy in the last part of your argument, which is your assertion that if, on the day of the general election, we are faced with two electable candidates, both of whom support intrinsic evils, and we choose at that point not to vote for either of them, we have chosen not to participate in public life.
Certainly voting is important, but if we’re attempting to promote a Catholic world view through public debate, activism on particular issues, cultivating politicians who don’t support intrinsically evil acts and praying for better choices during the 1460 days in between general elections, have we shirked our duty to society if we choose to not make compromises on election day?
I’ll grant that this stance can justify sloth and complacency — “Oh well. Same old bums again this year…” — but it need not do so necessarily.
MM, I understand your position on voting but quibble with how you get there. I don’t agree with the assertion that we are only called to participation in public life through voting. Complete withdrawal from the electoral process is perfectly legitimate if voting will bring Catholics to a position diametrically opposed to Church teachings. Hence, a Republican Catholic can refuse to vote for a prolife but protorture candidate and still engage to uplift society in other ways e.g. praying/protesting at abortion clinics.
Arewak- I agree with you, and am becoming more sympathetic to this point of view. The question is, though: while legitimate, is it required?
I agree with you, MM, on the theoretical question. As a practical matter, though, there art times when folks who are in serious disagreement with both parties should conspicuously opt out–if only to remind the 2 parties that they exist.
Aborition and courts should be the most important issue in 2008 election.
That is why the person in the White House matters most. We have several aging [liberal] judges at the supreme court who will be retiring soon. We need a Republican with strict constructionist view to appoint conservative judges . On issue of torture , we do have special rules and protocols regarding getting information from our caputred enemies, in the battlefield. These are person or persons, who have no problem destroying innocent life, because of an idiology. We are a peaceful, neighbor-loving nation, but how are you morally justifying sacrificing death of a moral nation without trying to protect the human life you so dearly value?
Dear Wormwood,
You are progressing nicely with this patient. First off, his argument against proportionality tempts the listener to put all sins on an equal plane. The claim that you cannot vote for one who supports intrinsic good at all, leaves the listener wondering if he can vote for anyone at all, and the master stroke comes at the end where he entreats the listener to go ahead and vote for someone as long as you don’t share their propensity for evil (which of course is all on an equal plane)! Delicious!
You are training this one well. Keep up the good work.
Your Uncle,
Screwtape
‘We need a Republican with strict constructionist view to appoint conservative judges . ‘
Stella, Catholics have been held hostage by this argument for as long as I can remember. Whether we have acquired (or ever will acquire) ‘constructionist’ judges in the Supreme Court is doubtful.
See Alasdair MacIntyre:
“When offered a choice between two politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to choose neither. And when that choice is presented in rival arguments and debates that exclude from public consideration any other set of possibilities, it becomes a duty to withdraw from those arguments and debates, so as to resist the imposition of this false choice by those who have arrogated to themselves the power of framing the alternatives….
“In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote case for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote.”
This is from a piece he wrote in 2004, “The Only Vote Worth Casting in November”, which I believe is still the best answer to this problem: http://ethicscenter.nd.edu/archives/macintyre.shtml