- One candidate is a bully and could be hurtful to some human rights.
- One candidate spells the end of America and has always been, is now, and will certainly be catastrophic for human rights in every way imaginable.
Can one vote for a lesser of two evils?
No. That’s a diabolical invention, consequentialism, the ol’ doing evil that good may come of it rubbish, whereby, says Saint Paul and the Holy Spirit, those who do this are justly condemned to hell (see Romans 3:8). What if you only have two viable options?
The Double Effect Theory championed by Saint Thomas Aquinas
(1) The kinetic action actually taken must not be intrinsically evil (e.g.: taking abortifacients), but must be good or at least indifferent. In this case, the action is as mundane as pulling a lever or pushing a button in a voting booth. That’s an action which is simply indifferent.
(2) The bad result cannot be intended, though you know it will be there. Thus, if you vote for the Bully over against the Beast, you know that there will some bullying going on that you don’t like, but you don’t want that. You intend the good that will come of your action, and that good can simply be that the Beast is blocked from taking office.
(3) The good result must be at least proportionally as good as the bad result is bad. That’s a definite go. No matter what happens with the Bully, that will be incomparatively better than that which will happen with the Beast. Note that this step is not to be equated with the condemned system of proportionalism since other steps counter the tendency toward relativism that this step could have with a malicious user of the theory.
(4) The good result cannot be directly caused by the bad result. That which happens by default when blocking the Beast from taking office, so that the Bully swears into office, is not a direct result, but a falling back to a default. You could say that the Beast was not elected (good) because the Bully was elected, but only inasmuch as you can also say that the Bully took the office by default when the Beast was not elected. Here it is the intention which is important: you are not so much electing the Bully as blocking the Beast. This isn’t just semantics.
- Voting for the Bully over the Beast is commendable.
- Voting for a candidate who has zero chance of winning is a vote for the Beast. Being falsely self-righteous about your self-righteous feelings about the Bully helps no one in the world, including you.
I know some people have very strong feelings about voting for the Zero-Chance guy. “I voted for Jesus!” they say. Jesus doesn’t want the job. Really. He’s already the Lord of History. And the Zero-Chance guy who unavoidably also has faults and who gladly accepts your votes, does he really want the good of the country before God and man? Just sayin’…
Note to DOS, DOJ, IRS et alii. I didn’t use any names did I? Also the ol’ beauty and the beast possible reference is all confused here, or is it? A question mark, you say? Yes. But it’s clear to everyone what I mean, you say? That’s in your imagination. And that’s what will keep me from being harassed. Well, I take that back. Some of you guys do whatever you please. Whatever. I’m just trying to discuss moral principles… Free speech…