Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Fr Taouk on voting  (Read 7197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: Fr Taouk on voting
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2019, 06:16:20 AM »
Say in 2024, both candidates are women. Or pro-abortion. Do we abstain from voting then, when there is no lesser of two evils?

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Fr Taouk on voting
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2019, 08:18:38 AM »
St. Alphonsus was talking about a scenario where there is no alternative, non datur tertium.

So, for instance, if someone is holding a gun to my family members and telling me I have to rob a bank or else they'll kill them.  If there's no way out of that situation, then robbing the bank is permitted since the greater evil would be the murder of my family.  This is absolutely not permitted except in a situation where there is no alternative, no third choice.  In other words, there is NO MORAL FREEDOM to do anything other than something OBJECTIVE wrong.  That is not actually a moral choice, an act of the will; as there's no free choice of evil.  In other words, in that scenario, while it would be objectively/materially wrong, it would not be formally immoral.  That has absolutely nothing to do with voting ... or with absolutely any other scenario in which one is FREE to do something that is not evil.

This has absolutely no applicability to voting.  Unless there were someone forcing you to pick a candidate under pain of death, you are free not to choose either candidate, to vote for a Third Party candidate, or even write someone in.





Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: Fr Taouk on voting
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2019, 09:44:59 AM »
Unless there were someone forcing you to pick a candidate under pain of death, you are free not to choose either candidate, to vote for a Third Party candidate, or even write someone in.
Exactly. 

Re: Fr Taouk on voting
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2019, 10:03:35 AM »
St. Alphonsus was talking about a scenario where there is no alternative, non datur tertium.

So, for instance, if someone is holding a gun to my family members and telling me I have to rob a bank or else they'll kill them.  If there's no way out of that situation, then robbing the bank is permitted since the greater evil would be the murder of my family.  This is absolutely not permitted except in a situation where there is no alternative, no third choice.  In other words, there is NO MORAL FREEDOM to do anything other than something OBJECTIVE wrong.  That is not actually a moral choice, an act of the will; as there's no free choice of evil.  In other words, in that scenario, while it would be objectively/materially wrong, it would not be formally immoral.  That has absolutely nothing to do with voting ... or with absolutely any other scenario in which one is FREE to do something that is not evil.

This has absolutely no applicability to voting.  Unless there were someone forcing you to pick a candidate under pain of death, you are free not to choose either candidate, to vote for a Third Party candidate, or even write someone in.
.
I agree about the limited applicability and brought that up earlier.  The point is that there is nevertheless an applicability, contrary to your statement that the concept itself was inherently anti-Catholic.  That's all.  We agree that voting is not one of those areas.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Fr Taouk on voting
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2019, 10:09:43 AM »
We're changing the debate here.  The original debate was over a 2 party alternative: Evil politician vs neutral/moderately good politician.  Mith says he's not obliged to vote, morally.  I disagree.
.
Obviously, if there is a 3rd party candidate who is "better" than the neutral/moderate candidate above, then you should vote for him.  But you're still voting for an imperfect candidate, which is what Mith objected to originally. 
.
If you avoid voting, then I say you are committing a sin of ommission.