What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Murder, Perfection, and Telling White Lies

When I say that I think it is wrong to vote for a Presidential candidate who supports the murder of innocents, including John McCain, people often respond as if they haven't heard what I said. A fairly typical response is that if I expect "perfection" in a candidate there will never be a candidate I can support, as if I had said that a candidate who would answer "no" to the question "does this dress make me look fat?" would be disqualified by taking that position. Lying is, after all, intrinsically immoral. But somehow "doesn't support the murder of innocents" has come to be equated with perfection in our politics.

There is a message in there for those who can hear, it seems to me.

As Evangelium Vitae tells us, there is a very basic contradiction at work when government officials support the killing of the innocent. Protection of the innocent from murder is fundamental to what a legitimate government is. A government which actively pursues the murder of the innocent is not merely doing something wicked: it is negating its own essence, destroying its very reason for being, indeed destroying its own being.

When we vote in national politics, what we are primarily doing - irrespective of what we think we are doing - is expressing our civic loyalty, our affirmation of the legitimacy of the governance which emerges from the election. My individual vote or deliberate abstention, as I have observed to much wailing and gnashing of teeth, is simply not going to affect the outcome of this election. Basing a moral choice on the idea that my vote can change the outcome is lunacy.

What my vote or abstention will affect is me: as a concrete act of civic duty it will express and even change the kind of citizen I am, and the nature of my commitment to the common good. When I am voting for a good politician - not a perfect politician, but one who at least minimally does not support the murder of the innocent - that is a good thing. When I vote for a politician who supports the murder of the innocent, I have contradicted every legitimate proportionate reason there might be to vote in the first place.

(Cross-posted)

Comments (45)

Is it wrong to pay taxes to a government that supports the killing of innocents? It seems like most people would respond, "no", or in any case, most people keep paying their taxes. I would attribute this tendency to self-interest--a desire to not be jailed. My point is that I can't think of a moral difference between electoral support of a candidate who supports the killing of innocents and the financial support of a government that supports the killing of innocents. It's much easier to do something about the former, though.

My point is that I can't think of a moral difference between electoral support of a candidate who supports the killing of innocents and the financial support of a government that supports the killing of innocents.

At this point voting for one of the two major party candidates is not required by law. If it were, and it may well come to that in the long run, then it might well be justifiable to do so as a way of avoiding jail and being able to continue to support one's family. It is an entirely different set of moral parameters.

There are three possibilities here regarding a vote for a some abortion: it is not morally permissible, it is permissible but not mandatory, it is mandatory.

You say it is "wrong," so I take you to mean to mean it is not morally permissible for anyone, and not just for yourself.

Cardinal Ratzinger seems to disagree. He leaves open the possibility that a candidate who supports some abortion can be voted for:
"When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

The Kmiecs of this world ran with this statement, but their misuse does not negate its proper use. This statement means, at the very least, that it can be permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some abortion if the other guy supports much more abortion.

Do you disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger on this point?

As applied to the current race, I think it is reasonable to say, even though McCain is bad in the ways you describe, that voting for McCain/Palin is one of the examples encompassed by Cardinal Ratzinger's statement. Voting for Obama is obviously not justified by Ratzinger's statement, but with Palin on the ticket and with Obama on the other side, this seems to be a prototypical case.

sorry, that should be:

There are three possibilities here regarding a vote for a candidate who supports some abortion:

A very good theme to bring out, Zippy. I think something like this--that unqualified rejection of any candidate who does not believe in the defense of innocent human life is akin to the "perfect being the enemy of the good"--underpins the entire Seamless Garment schematic. Put in less convoluted fashion, you're simply arguing against Seamless Garment logic. "Yes, yes, candidate X is very bad on the 'sawing babies to pieces' question, but at least he has a comprehensive plan for insuring the uninsured." There is an obvious difference here that concerns which issues are truly fundamental, and which are tertiary, as well as which problems are actually subject to some practical short-term amelioration.

Do you disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger on this point?

No. I just further believe that, in a national election, there is no such proportionate reason. That kind of remote material cooperation might be justifiable in an election where one's vote has a non-negligible effect on the outcome. That is not the case in national elections.

I believe "msb" has clearly defined the issue for voters who want to think with the Church.
Do I reject McCain/Palin because of McCain's willingness to embrace embryonic experimentation, or is the hope of a favorable Supreme Court shift regarding Roe v Wade a justifiable proportionate reason?

...or is the hope of a favorable Supreme Court shift regarding Roe v Wade a justifiable proportionate reason?

It could be a proportionate reason, if there was any reason to believe that your act of support would be effective in actually making that happen. In order to be proportionate an act of material cooperation with evil must be effective in bringing about its intended end. If the intended end is for your individual act of voting to make the election outcome to go this way rather than that way, then the putative justification is based on what I view as a false mythology about the nature of national elections.

Zippy,

With due respect, if there is no such proportionate reason, the USCCB would not have issued the following:

Here's a quote from the Bishop's (USCCB)Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship:

"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 good."

It's rather ironic that Dr. Bauman, a Protestant, had independently come to this conclusion rather than a seemingly devout Catholic (a Catholic I do respect, by the way, if that needs be said) who is already aware of this guidance issued by the Church.

Mind you, your premise that if such proportionate reasoning damages the person, let alone, their soul; then the Congregation of Bishops who issued thus are guilty of misguiding the believer at the very risk of the believer's soul since they included the latter rather than merely limiting it to the former (i.e., abstention from voting altogether), as you have so rigidly favored.

Furthermore, this other premise:

"When I vote for a politician who supports the murder of the innocent, I have contradicted every legitimate proportionate reason there might be to vote in the first place."

...declares McCain presumed guilty for presidential support on ESCR, which he has not even endorsed nor given any indication whatsoever that he would support when president (contrast that with Obama whose Pro-Choice presidential agenda is an absolute certainty).


Lastly, this:

"Protection of the innocent from murder is fundamental to what a legitimate government is."

...is the very reason why McCain is garnering the vote amongst Catholics because of all the thousands of additional victims who would die each day should Obama ascend to the Presidency.

Your repeated attempts at explaining yourself leaves me with the impression that you believe your opinions have not had a fair hearing; on the contrary, they have. If it wasn't the case, folks as myself would not engage in continued discussions with you on the matter.

Just because we don't embrace your argument doesn't necessarily mean we haven't heard you or that those who disagree with you are bad people.

More significantly, it's just there are those who believe that the multitudes of victims who will die under Obama shouldn't be sacrificed merely because of Principle, but rescued from their eventual Fate under an Obama Presidency.

I hope you will come to respect my opinion as I do yours.

Zippy--thank you for your response. The principal difficulty with using vote-weight as a factor to decide what reason is proportionate, is that when vote-weight goes down because you are in a large election, not only does the benefit justifying your vote for a bad guy go down, but the level of material cooperation in electing the bad guy goes down, and it goes down by the same degree. So they are a wash. If you are in a small state or a close race, your vote for the bad guy is both more important in achieving the good end and also is more materially cooperative in assisting the bad. The opposite is true where your vote doesn't really matter. So this factor can't be used to say, "my benefit is tiny because this is a national election, so the benefit is no longer proportionate to the *level of* bad material cooperation." That bad level goes down too, by the same degree. If your vote matters, it matters for good and bad. If it doesn't matter so much, it doesn't matter for good and bad alike. Unless you have a bad intent (voting for someone *because* they are evil), but we are hypothesizing that such intent is abent.

...not only does the benefit justifying your vote for a bad guy go down, but the level of material cooperation in electing the bad guy goes down, and it goes down by the same degree. So they are a wash.

That would be true if effects on the election outcome were the only effect of an individual act of voting. My post addresses the point specifically in the fourth paragraph.

"Protection of the innocent from murder is fundamental to what a legitimate government is."

Not for the first time, the question is posed; is our government morally legitimate? If the answer is no, simply seceding from the electoral process is ultimately a psychically satisfying, but sacrifice-free form of dissent. Different only by degree from the complicity that comes with actively acquiescing in a swindle. More demanding actions will be required, but what are they?

A discussion of this nature began at First Things back in the Clinton years. Expect it to be revisited during the Obama Administration. For now, the intense emotional investment into the cultural Rorschach test that is this election, will postpone the necessary delving into the matter. Still, its very healthy that the exercise begin now.

Zippy:

You're stark raving mad. But you're blog brother, so I gotta love ya.

Nevertheless, killing innocents is different than murdering innocents. And I'm surprised that someone who is Catholic does not seem to appreciate that distinction. Moreover, you may very well disagree with John McCain's views, but it is pretty over the top to say that he supports the intentional murdering of innocent people. I think you need more than merely asserting it.

If you are suggesting that any military action in which innocents are killed makes the war unjust, then you reject the Catholic just war teaching and are in fact a pacifist. You are certainly welcome to hold that view, but it is not the Catholic view. After all, even just wars result in the death of innocents.

You need to be less Zippy and more Catholic.

I still love ya, though.

Hear! Hear!

Less cannibal more Catholic!

Frank, could there just be a major misunderstanding here?

Zippy is talking, when he mentions intentionally killing the innocent, about ESCR. Where did just war come in here? Now, on that latter point, you might be arguing with Kevin, who has indeed made a much stronger comparison between things like ESCR and abortion, on the one hand, and collateral deaths of the innocent in war, on the other, than I would ever do or than I have ever heard Zippy do.

I think you are just misunderstanding what Zippy is referring to.

You're stark raving mad.
Not an uncommon assessment
... but it is pretty over the top to say that he supports the intentional murdering of innocent people.
No it isn't. It is a simple statement of fact, given that embryos are innocent people.
If you are suggesting that any military action in which innocents are killed makes the war unjust
I would never suggest such a silly thing.

Kevin,

You make an interesting inquiry into things.

As I've alluded to earlier in another thread to a fellow Catholic:

(Keeping in mind Natural Law being "what God has imprinted on the hearts of men, a moral compass society must recognize as the foundation of its legal construct".)

As a wise & prominent senior partner at a prestigious law firm (also Catholic) also said:

"Positive law is law that is enacted by humans in accordance with their human system of justice. All believers in natural law believe that positive law must reflect natural law. Some, such as myself, believe that it is the duty of the body politic to ensure this via the political process."


I believe the above cannot be accomplished without our participation in making that so.

Worse yet, our abstention from such efforts in shaping the system to what it should be could only make matters worse -- especially in the case of allowing the Pro-Aborts to be given the chance to implement their heinous policies at the Presidential level as well as on the Supreme Court by the appointment of Pro-Abort Justices.

Lydia,
'you might be arguing with Kevin,"

No way. Frank is either arguing with a straw man (After all, even just wars result in the death of innocents.), or if he is claiming Iraq a Just War, taking on the last 2 Popes.

You're right, Lydia. I was reading too much into Zippy' comments. My bad.

I do agree with Zippy that McCain is wrong about ESCR. Having said that, by not voting for McCain, you're helping Obama, who believes that preemies are in the iffy category.

When faced with two flawed men, choose the least flawed. That's how pick teammates in pick-up b-ball games. Same goes for presidents.

So, in terms of my comment above, to quote Emily Litella, "Never mind."


Having said that, by not voting for McCain, you're helping Obama

I realize this is a common trope, but taken literally, it's false. By not voting for McCain, I'm refusing to help McCain defeat Obama. That's not the same thing, literally speaking, as helping Obama. It just ain't so. But I've made the argument on that point so often that I know everyone is sick of it. Suffice it to say that you can get that conclusion only by assigning votes as owed to some candidate ab initio based on degree of closeness of the candidate's position to the voter's. Then you deem the voter to be taking an action to help the other candidate by _taking away_ his vote from the candidate to which you have assigned his vote. I reject such an assignment. And since I don't prima facie owe my vote to the lesser-evil candidate, I am not taking an action which helps the other candidate by refusing to vote for either. It is as arbitrary to say that I'm helping Obama by a non-vote or by voting third party as to say that I'm helping McCain by doing so.

Beckwith said: "Having said that, by not voting for McCain, you're helping Obama, who believes that preemies are in the iffy category."


I've said that before, but only to find sarcastic dismissals of various parties to such a notion.

The fact of the matter is that while NOT VOTING for Obama (or neither, for that matter); the vote will not have any actual effect at all since it DEPENDS on the pool of voters who will be voting for Obama.

IF the pool is STILL HUGE even after those "deprived votes", Obama will still WIN the Presidency.

What does guarantee Obama's defeat in an election (most especially, in a close election) is a vote cast for the candidate most likely to defeat him.

WHY?

Since Obama's Defeat can ONLY occur IF his Opposition gathers MORE VOTES than he does!

EDIT:

What does guarantee Obama's defeat in an election (most especially, in a close election) [is the greater number of votes] cast for the candidate most likely to defeat him.

WHY?

Since Obama's Defeat can ONLY occur IF his Opposition gathers MORE VOTES than he does!

Refusing to help McCain defeat Obama is like refusing to help radical Muslims defeat radical liberals. (Or vice versa). The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

"The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend."

It depends on who is considered an enemy and if that enemy is actually one at all.

Refusing to fight against Hitler because it would mean fighting alongside the Evil Communist Empire can only help Hitler; not defeat him.

For those who don't catch on:

- The Evil Communist Empire helped defeat The Axis of Evil.

- On the other hand, unlike The Evil Communist Empire who had a deliberately evil agenda, McCain ESCR presidential support is, at this point, merely hypothetical; what is certain in the case of McCain is that he is ANTI-ABORTION (like Palin) and that Obama is An Determined Enemy of the Culture of Death!


http://abortobama.com/

I don't quite understand this reference to McCain's ESCR support as merely hypothetical. It certainly is not. He has voted for it; he has written to President Bush urging him to change his policy. This is not a guess. This is a statement about past definite and specific action. As for McCain and being anti(surgical) abortion, what is sure is that he now touts his pro-life voting record (er, except on ESCR) and says he is against surgical abortion. What is less certain even there is how deep even that position goes. I note in this regard Rick Santorum's explicit statement that McCain always tried to delay and avoid votes on any life issue or conservative issue. I note too his complicity in the Gang of 14. This isn't a basically sound man who has gotten inexplicably fuddled on one crucial issue and can be expected to think his way out of it. Not by a long shot.

Lydia,

What I regard as being hypothetical is the notion that upon becoming President, he would most certainly implement ESCR policies -- especially since his success is dependent on a Pro-Life Constituency (which his Palin picked implicitly acknowledged).


Did you read the Life News article I cited previously? McCain, in fact, was originally against ESCR funding.

Should McCain refrain from public funding, it would be a return of sorts to his original position against embryonic stem cell research funding, adopted before Nancy Reagan lobbied him on the issue in 2005, The Hill indicates.

SOURCE: http://www.lifenews.com/bio2546.html


Also, concerning the notion that voting for McCain is not only offensive to the Paleo-conservative sensibilities amongst various parties but, more significantly, would actually produce a less-and-less conservative candidate in the next election via the so-described Hegelian Mambo:

Did you ever consider the FACT that should Obama win & his Presidency Successful (especially given how badly things are right now); that this would actually make the LIBERAL CANDIDATE the GOLD STANDARD for the Nation (at least, where the masses are concerned & in the perception of the commoner)?

The Populace would not hesitate on advocating the liberal candidate in the future due to the rewards that were reaped from such a candidate!

(Unlike Zippy, I am of the notion that it was the popularity of the Bill Clinton administration (e.g., the perception that the prospering economy during his time was due to him rather than, for example, the raise in taxes Bush Sr. before him had to implement -- but that's a whole other Topic altogether) that made the Liberal Candidate all the more Popular amongst the Masses. The lunacy of Bush Jr. might have been contributive to a less-and-less conservativism, but not amongst the major factors responsible.)

As I recall, 30 years ago most evangelical leaders had no strong stance against abortion. It was mostly Catholic theologians who had no problems recognizing when life began. But, they quickly recognized the wrong and have become just as outspoken on the issue. I would like to afford John McCain more time on the issue. In John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin, he has demonstrated his ability to pick people who hold stronger views and contradicting views on abortion and other issues. I would argue, that the abortion issue will be won by the change of heart on society as a whole and not on the election of one individual. However, I would vote for the individual who is more likely to have a change of heart.

Lydia,
Yes, McCain is inconsistently pro-life. His stance on ESCR is, to say the least, deeply distressing.

But as you know full well, no matter what happens, we're not going to get a president in November whom we can confidently believe will oppose ESCR. That's not going to happen, no matter what we do. That possibility is off the table. Tragically, we lost that battle for 2008. The choice we now face is between someone who will be pro-life on abortion but not on ESCR, and someone who will be consistently pro-death on both. Nobody else has a chance.

We bewail that fact, and we should. But in light of the choice we now face -- someone who opposes abortion and someone who promotes it -- we must vote to save as many innocent lives as we can. I am quite certain that means voting to keep Obama out of office. Obviously, voting for Obama will not do that. Voting for a third party candidate will not do that. Declining to vote at all will not do that. The only way to keep Obama out of office is to vote for McCain. That's our only viable option for reducing abortion. As distasteful as it is, in this election, there is no other way. We no longer have a choice between candidates on ESCR, though we do have a choice on abortion. I will not miss my chance to keep the pro-abortion candidate out of office. I will do my part to give his only viable opponent the votes needed to win.

Just because I do not have a choice on the ESCR issue this time does not mean I won't vote the abortion issue. I definitely will. I'm not letting innocent lives be taken by abortion simply because I didn't succeed in protecting those who will likely be lost to ESCR. No way. I'm going to vote to protect as many lives as I possibly can. Under the conditions that now prevail, that means voting for McCain.

Addendum:

If either candidate is persuadable on the issue of ESCR, it is McCain.

To add to Dr. Bauman's point here: "I am quite certain that means voting to keep Obama out of office. Obviously, voting for Obama will not do that. Voting for a third party candidate will not do that. Declining to vote at all will not do that."

YOU CAN'T BEAT SOMEBODY (i.e., Obama) WITH A VOTE FOR NOBODY!


As I've said earlier:

"...Obama's Defeat can ONLY occur IF his Opposition gathers MORE VOTES than he does!"

Michael, I do understand your position, and I appreciate your way of putting it--that is, that you don't minimize the problems with McCain in the cavalier fashion that one sometimes sees among his supporters. For the record, I don't think he's persuadable _ethically_ on ESCR, because frankly, I don't think he much cares about it. He might be persuadable _pragmatically_ given the iPSC successes, but we don't know, he coyly won't say, and that isn't very satisfying anyway. But the more important thing to say is just that McCain is over my line in the sand at multiple points. I think we have to have a line, and he's over it. ESCR is my biggest point-to issue, but let's face it: The guy is a liberal on issue after issue and has contempt, and has for many years had contempt, for conservatives within his own party. His choice of Mrs. Palin is a cynical political ploy, and I'm sorry such a good lady and even potentially good candidate in her own right should be used by such a person in such a way. That, at any rate, is my opinion. McCain is just not a candidate under whose banner I am willing to stand, to put it in the terms that I did in one of my earlier posts on the nature of a vote.

Aristocles, I actually agree with you that a Democrat president moves the country as a whole to the left farther and faster than a liberal Republican. Or such has been my experience. There was a lot of desperation after the Clinton presidency. I saw the conservatives feeling sort of "whupped" after eight years of Clinton and more ready to compromise than ever. I saw this with my own eyes, especially in the early years of Bush II, when they didn't criticize him for things they probably should have criticized him for, because they said, "Look what happened last time we criticized a Republican President harshly." In fact, Paul Weyrich said this _explicitly_ in the early months of W.'s presidency.

However, even in terms of consequences, I think there is a more important point: Conservatives were whupped by eight years of a Democratic presidency in a different _way_ from the way in which they are compromised by eight years of a president who supposedly is "their guy" but who really doesn't act like their guy. During the Clinton presidency they saw black and white as black and white. During the Bush presidency, they have taught themselves not to do so. That this was also in part the result of the Clinton presidency doesn't change the nature of the corruption involved, nor does it change the fact that _that_ particular type of corruption can arise only when you have a man in the White House for whom you worked and voted and then feel you have to mute your criticisms of him.

And finally, of course, see my comments to Michael. For me this isn't really chiefly a consequential issue. McCain has tripped my wire, my alarm has gone off, and I've said, "Okay, the compromises stop here." I probably should have said it long ago.

Lydia,
You'd really decline to vote on the right side of the abortion issue because McCain tripped your wire on other issues?

I strongly, strongly disagree.

The Evil Communist Empire helped defeat The Axis of Evil.

And as I recall, we all subsequently suffered a bit of blowback from that compromise.

Zippy--Cardinal Ratzinger seems to clearly say that voting for a candidate who supports some abortion can sometimes be merely material cooperation that can be justified for a proportionate reason.

You seem to be saying one of two things. First that you can never vote for a candidate who supports some abortion so as to stop one who supports more. I think if you are saying this you are contradicting Cardinal Ratzinger.

Alternately, you are saying that you can vote for a candidate who supports some abortion but just not in a national election. My problem here is a lack of understanding. What about the nationalness of the election takes it off the table?

Your response is only to refer to your initial post. I am looking there and I see several assertions, many of which I agree with, but none of which I see how it takes a national election out of the Ratzinger analysis.

First you say that supporting some abortion undermines the very legitimacy of the government. OK. That's true in any election, not just national. So you would be back to denying the Ratzinger analysis completely, so that proportionality can never apply to an abortion supporter.

Second and related, you seem to say that if the guy we are voting for supports abortion he cannot possibly ever be a legitimate authority because he is a self-contradiction, again because legitimacy is undermined. OK. Here again this applies in any election and would just be a denial of the Ratzinger analysis.

Third, I guess, you say our vote affirms the legitimacy of the winner. OK. If by this you mean, that if I vote for anyone I am affirming the legitimacy of whoever wins. Well the winner has procedural legitimacy but not substantive legitimacy and I didn't affirm it. And again that is no different than in local elections.

Fourth perhaps you are saying that if I vote for a ticket that includes an abortion supporter, my choice necessarily includes the abortion support in its object. Well sometimes it is only included materially not formally, and in those cases sometimes there can be a proportionate reason for it, if you accept Ratzinger.

Finally I guess you are saying that you can only vote for an abortion supporter if he is running for something like dog catcher, where abortion support is utterly irrelevant to the authority of the office. I just don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Ratzinger. I don't think he could have meant that in context. It would kind of be a useless point.

NB: is it possible that you are confusing how EV treats voting for legislation with how it and the CHurch treat voting for candidates? FWIW I think there's a big difference and we have much more latitide in the latter to characterize our vote as not supporting associated evils. But maybe this is not the problem, so if not please disregard it.

Well, Michael, I don't see ESCR as all that unrelated. Nor, I suspect, do you. So I would resist the characterization "other issues." As for "voting on the right side of the abortion issue," I might vote for some third-party candidate more pro-life than McCain, or I might not, but in any event, I think that way of putting it very odd. It might be taken to imply that the alternative is voting on the wrong side, which as you know I am not doing, and in any event it implies that there is only one way to be on the right side on the abortion issue, which is far from true. And, again, I absolutely do not trust McCain even on the issue of surgical abortion. I think it's rather sad that people expect him to appoint good justices when the very justices they hope he will duplicate in his appointments are the ones who would have struck down his own fairly obviously unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. All evidence taken into account (and there's much more than that), I expect a President McCain, if there is one, to appoint justices who disappoint grievously.

Well, Michael, I don't see ESCR as all that unrelated.

I didn't say that ESCR and abortion are all that unrelated, I said that in this election they are distinct because while we probably can't hinder the former, we can hinder the latter. When it comes to saving lives from abortion, I will, even if I can't save lives from ESCR. I will not miss the chance to restrict abortion, and I will not miss the chance to stop Obama from promoting it. Only one viable and efficacious way is open for me to do that. No other vote can possibly succeed.


As for "voting on the right side of the abortion issue," I might vote for some third-party candidate more pro-life than McCain, or I might not, but in any event, I think that way of putting it very odd. It might be taken to imply that the alternative is voting on the wrong side, which as you know I am not doing, and in any event it implies that there is only one way to be on the right side on the abortion issue, which is far from true.

Perhaps I am mistaken -- and it happens more often than I like! -- but I assume we both think that voting to put into office someone who will resist abortion and voting to keep out of office someone who will promote abortion at the same time is voting on the right side. Voting for a third party candidate who is more pro-life life than McCain, while ideologically more satisfying, will not do that in this election. A third party is simply not going to prevail. That being so, the alternative to voting for McCain in this election IS voting on the wrong side, no matter what candidate you do or don't vote for because no other viable candidate available to us can or will restrict abortion and keep Obama out of office -- not one. This time, no other vote does it.

In other words, there's only one efficaciously pro-life vote this time. No other vote works. There are other ideologically pro-life votes; there are no other efficaciously pro-life votes. If you contend that some other vote puts a pro-lifer in office and thereby keeps Obama out of office and thereby stops his spread of abortion, then I need you to tell me exactly what vote that is. What other vote does it? Who will you vote for that can accomplish that end?


And, again, I absolutely do not trust McCain even on the issue of surgical abortion. I think it's rather sad that people expect him to appoint good justices when the very justices they hope he will duplicate in his appointments are the ones who would have struck down his own fairly obviously unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. All evidence taken into account (and there's much more than that), I expect a President McCain, if there is one, to appoint justices who disappoint grievously.


You are right to have misgivings about McCain's judicial appointments. I do too. But if the only realistic alternative to McCain appointments in this election is Obama appointments, then the choice is clear: If the choice before me is McCain picking judges or Obama picking judges -- and that is precisely the choice before me -- then I'll go with McCain every time. If Obama picks judges, the evil consequences go on perhaps for decades. Whether I like it or not, my only viable alternative to Obama judges is McCain judges. And even though McCain judges might turn out to be bad, Obama judges certainly will be. I'm going to cast the only effective vote I can to keep Obama judges from the bench. If there is another other vote that keeps Obama judges from the bench, I need to know exactly what it is.

What about the nationalness of the election takes it off the table?

The fact that on that scale, any effect I can have is negligible. Actual effectiveness is a component of any legitimate proportionate reason. In the Just War doctrine, for example - a particular form of applied double-effect with a long pedigree - one of the criteria is that there must be a reasonable chance of success: that is, going to war must actually be effective in defending the country in order for it to be just. Futile warfare is immoral, even if all the other criteria are met. More generally, futile acts of material cooperation with evil are immoral.

An act of voting has (at least) two categories of effects: its effects on the person who votes, and its effects on the outcome of the election. In a small scale election it is reasonable to consider effects on the outcome of the election as a component of proportionate reason; in a mass-market election like a Presidential election, this is not the case.

Concisely, no futile act of material cooperation with evil is ever justified; because there is no proportionate reason to engage in a futile act.

Now, the usual response is that the act is futile taken in itself, but that it is not futile when taken in aggregate with a large bloc of other voters. Hidden in here is a false assumption which I dealt with in another post. So, either in itself or taken in conjunction with a bloc of other voters, it is objectively futile to cast a vote for a presidential candidate who supports murdering the innocent.

In summary, my argument is that in the particular case of Presidential elections in the United States in current circumstances and any circumstances similar to current circumstances, as an objective matter there is no proportionate reason to cast a vote for president for a candidate who supports murdering the innocent. Therefore it is morally wrong for anyone to do it.

As far as I can tell, that doesn't in any way conflict with the principles articulated in Cardinal Ratzinger's non-magisterial private letter to Cardinal McCarrick; though it does apply them to more concrete circumstances.

This is an interesting discussion. How does the electoral systyem factor into the equation for you all? For example, my state is going to go for McCain by a margin of 65-35 give or take. What would be immoral about my protesting McCain's nomination on the Republican ticket by either abstaining or voting third party? It's not going to affect the outcome anyhow.

"Kevin, who has indeed made a much stronger comparison between things like ESCR and abortion, on the one hand, and collateral deaths of the innocent in war,..."

Lydia,
I think the connection between unjust wars, abortion and eugenics pretty clear as each are intrinsically evil and each rely on the culture of death's peculiar lexicon of obscurantism.

A swaggering Secretary of "Defense"(ever wonder why they changed the name from Dept of War?) doesn't announce; "today’s mission resulted in the killing of 7 innocent Iraqi civilians - 2 adults and 5 children." A clear statement like that makes the carnage and mayhem less abstract for the 99.5% of the population not doing all the dying and killing and might trigger inconvenient moral qualms.

While some sanitize war, others cover the stench that comes with creating human life for the purpose of experimentation and destruction with the cologne of deceit. "Embryonic research" emits a mellow aroma of technical competence in the pursuit of progress and
likewise subverts our ability to plainly see and speak the truth.

I am sympathetic to Zippy’s position. I do not believe he is contradicting the Bishops. Instead, he has clearly stated that there is no proportionate reason to materially cooperate with evil in a national election. I have yet to see anything that explicitly says that in a U.S. presidential election that there is always a proportionate reason to vote for the “lesser cannibal”, only that there could be in certain circumstances.

A common response is that if everybody sat this election out that Obama would be President, but I think what is left unstated is that this is supposed to be limited to only conservatives. However, Zippy responded to this when he spoke of misusing “all things being equal”. People can frame this anyway they want in order to fit it according to their views. Zippy’s position is that it is morally wrong for anyone to vote for either candidate. Being morally responsible citizens, imagine that nobody voted for either candidate and instead, everyone wrote in pro-life candidate X. If everyone did it, we would have a pro-life president. Of course, in the real world this will not happen because in the real world all things are not equal. That is my understanding of his position. I only hope it’s accurate.

"More generally, futile acts of material cooperation with evil are immoral."

Zippy, a few more questions (came over from Mark's blog):

1. Is it your position that voting in national elections in America at the present time and for the foreseeable future constitutes material cooperation with evil?

2. Is this material cooperation immediate or mediate, and, if mediate, is it proximate or remote?

3. Given that voting in a national election is, by your explication, a merely symbolic and not an efficacious act, how is it possible for it to be material cooperation in the first place, of whatever sort?

4. If it is clear morally speaking that voting in a national election in America today constitutes material cooperation with evil, how is it possible that not a single bishop of the United States has warned his flock that they must not vote lest they imperil their immortal souls?

1. Yes, given the actual candidates we've had.

2. Mediate and remote, though if it has evil effects on the voter himself those effects may well be immediate.

3. I wouldn't call voting merely symbolic. The effects it has on us as individuals and as a people are real. That your vote is never, ever going to decide a national election does not mean that voting and elections have no effects.

4. I'm baffled by the question. The Bishops don't tell us all about the nature of economics either, yet every day we act in morally significant ways in our economic activities.

I am still following and responding to the discussion at CAEI, and I replied rather more extensively there. I'd prefer to continue it in one place or the other rather than trying to keep track of a schizophrenic discussion in multiple places.

I'll go back over there, then; I just thought that with the comments at 140+ over there it might be getting unwieldy.

Well, I'm happy to chat about the subject anywhere, but in my experience when a discussion jumps comboxes it can be a mess. Everyone ends up saying the same thing in both places, and bystanders in the 'jumped to' combox have no context. If anyone is interested, the discussion is here.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.