LOL, it takes an ignorant "Feeneyite" (Brother Andre Marie) to get this right.

I appreciate the accurate explanation, but it didn't seem to me to have much effect on the overall conclusion.

I appreciate the accurate explanation, but it didn't seem to me to have much effect on the overall conclusion.

No, no, no.  Principles matter, Mater.  Two people can do the exact same action, materially speaking, but it could be a sin for one but a virtue for the other depending upon their formal intent, and it's the reasoning and principles applied that will determine the formal morality of the action.  This is absolutely crucial and cannot be blown off as mere pedantic or academic splitting of hairs.

"Lesser evil" thinking is morally repugnant and must be repudiated by all Catholics.  Period.

And there can in fact be radically different material outcomes of applying double effect vs. lesser evil.

So, no, it's absolutely NOT just hair-splitting.

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?

I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?

No.

I'll let Ladislaus or others comment more on the principles, but I'll just say, imagine if the only 2 candidates were Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, would you vote for Stalin since he'll kill fewer people?  Hopefully that example helps illustrate it.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

It is neither "prudent" nor "permissible" to vote for a lesser evil.  Sorry.  That's false ends-justifies-the-means moral reasoning.  It is NOT Catholic.

The principle is that if one ONLY has two choices of evil, he must choose the lesser evil. But "voting" really isn't that....because you can choose NOT TO VOTE, or to vote for a WRITE IN CANDIDATE....at least in the U.S.

Just so I understand what you're saying:

People are arguing that there are only 2 choices:

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X (because it's only way to keep out supposedly even worse candidate X)

 Whereas you are saying that is incorrect, in that we have more choices,

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X
3. don't vote at all because both X & Y are evil (and our voting system is a complete fraud anyway)
4. write someone else in

i.e. It's not like someone is putting a gun to our head, saying "you must vote for evil candidate X or Y."

Is that what you're saying above?  

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?

I'm teeter-tottering on the edge of quite confused. : )

No real Catholic would say they're voting for him because "he's for 1st trimester abortion" (an evil) but rather, "because he's against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion" (a good). Presuming no one else is against abortion at all, wouldn't it be permissible to vote for the only candidate who is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion?

Mater, put it this way:
A candidate says:

I believe it is OK to kill 1 yr old children, but I think killing a 2 or 3 yr old is going too far.

Does that make the issue less confused. He is not against abortion per se. He against aborting older babies, and, I would presume, he is for it in difficult circuмstances, in the case of rape, young girls, women endangered, disabled child, etc.

Quote from: MaterDominici

I appreciate the accurate explanation, but it didn't seem to me to have much effect on the overall conclusion.

No, no, no.  Principles matter, Mater.  Two people can do the exact same action, materially speaking, but it could be a sin for one but a virtue for the other depending upon their formal intent, and it's the reasoning and principles applied that will determine the formal morality of the action.  This is absolutely crucial and cannot be blown off as mere pedantic or academic splitting of hairs.

"Lesser evil" thinking is morally repugnant and must be repudiated by all Catholics.  Period.

And there can in fact be radically different material outcomes of applying double effect vs. lesser evil.

So, no, it's absolutely NOT just hair-splitting.

Let us imagine a presidential election in which one candidate favors abortion but only in the first trimester while the other candidate wants no limits up to and including partial birth abortion.  So can you vote for the first-trimester abortion proponent as a "lesser evil"?

What if you see it as a matter of not voting for the lesser evil, but voting against the greater evil?

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Ladislaus

It is neither "prudent" nor "permissible" to vote for a lesser evil.  Sorry.  That's false ends-justifies-the-means moral reasoning.  It is NOT Catholic.

The principle is that if one ONLY has two choices of evil, he must choose the lesser evil. But "voting" really isn't that....because you can choose NOT TO VOTE, or to vote for a WRITE IN CANDIDATE....at least in the U.S.

Just so I understand what you're saying:

People are arguing that there are only 2 choices:

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X (because it's only way to keep out supposedly even worse candidate X)

 Whereas you are saying that is incorrect, in that we have more choices,

1. vote for evil candidate X
2. vote for evil candidate Y, who is supposedly slightly less evil than candidate X
3. don't vote at all because both X & Y are evil (and our voting system is a complete fraud anyway)
4. write someone else in

i.e. It's not like someone is putting a gun to our head, saying "you must vote for evil candidate X or Y."

Is that what you're saying above?  

Yes. We can vote for an evil when we have no other choice but to vote for an evil, and if that time comes, we would be forced to choose the lesser evil. But we DO have a choice to refrain from voting, or to write in a candidate. Until people realize this, evil will forever be voted in, and the degradation of society will continue.