The Case for Voting for the Non-Intrinsic Evil Candidate

Last updated on: December 30, 2014 at 12:03 pm by Mark Shea

The Case for Voting for the Non-Intrinsic Evil Candidate 2014-12-30T12:03:29-07:00 Mark Shea

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Church’s argument for the Lesser of Two Evils candidates is simple and obvious: Better the corrupt guy who may accidently do some good or at least not be as passionate about doing evil than the guy bound and determined to do grave evil. Anybody can see the reasonableness of this.

The problem comes in when both candidates are, practically speaking, committed to intrinsic grave evils and, practically speaking, will see to it that those evils continue, even though one of them may do so with a sad face.

Zippy Catholic lays out the problem with supporting that when the Church makes the justification “proportionate reasons for remote material cooperation with grave evil”:

One outcome-independent consideration I’ve discussed before is that for most people, voting involves formal cooperation with evil. So even when you, dear reader, are well-formed enough to avoid formal cooperation with grave evil in voting, there is the scandal that most people are not. I’ve also argued that because the effect you have on the outcome is literally negligible, the particular outcome you prefer cannot be invoked as proportionate reason to materially cooperate with grave evil, especially when that grave evil is some form of murdering the innocent.

The highlighted point is, I think, very compelling. It’s this: the mathematical reality is that because the impact of your vote is, quite literally, utterly negligible to the outcome of the election, there can *never be* a proportionate reason to cast it for grave intrinsic evil since the impact of the vote on you will always vastly outweigh the impact of your vote on the election.

One of the ironic testimonies to the truth of this is the fact that those who object to the choice to support candidates who advocate no grave intrinsic evil virtually always do so by a) trying to argue that avoidance of grave intrinsic evil worthy of the everlasting fires of hell is “perfectionism” and b) by those same people routinely labelling those who wish to avoid the everlasting fires of hell as prissy self-regarding narcissists. Such arguments then typically go on to boasting about the critic’s own “realistic” willingness to manfully roll up one’s sleeves and “get our hands dirty” by supporting grave evil — oblivious to so much as the possibility that such a pose of manful courage is itself a form of self-regarding narcissism. Those who strike that pose should consider a) the fact that it is anything but “realistic” to imagine that one vote out of millions has any real impact on the outcome of a presidential election. They should also reflect on the fact that the rhetoric they use to hail themselves as “courageous” and those who take another path to limiting evil as fools for being concerned about grave intrinsic evil goes a long way to persuade some of us that Zippy has a very important point about how supporting candidates who advocate grave, intrinsic evil is a game not worth the candle since the effects on the voter seem to vastly outweigh his vote’s effect on the election.

Uncategorized

Consequentialism on Parade

Previous Post

October 17, 2012

When trying to evaluate pols...

Next Post

October 17, 2012 For all Those "Realists" Out There

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 September 2006 June 2006 July 2005 April 2005 May 2002 April 2002 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz