I really fundamentally disagree with much of the modern way of looking at things, but sometimes you have to reach people where they are. The following is in many ways a terrible analogy from my perspective; but maybe someone will find it helpful just the same.
I propose the following game for reflection.
Suppose we have an account in which we store some currency. Lets call this currency 'evil'. Our task is to keep it to a minimum.
Every four years we get to choose one of two interest rates on the principal. The interest rate can be either positive or negative, in theory - a negative interest rate would eat away at the principal, while a positive interest rate adds to the principal - but in practice the actual choices we are given are always positive numbers. Also, the process is such that the more positive the interest rate is in the previous cycle, the more likely we are to have higher rates this cycle.
How can we keep the balance of this account from growing without bounds?
Stop playing along with the stupid game, that's how. It is one thing to err by making the perfect the enemy of the good; it is another entirely to make the lesser evil the friend of the greater.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Zippy:
Allow me to ask you --
(Putting aside the Attack on Pearl Harbor)
Should the U.S. in World War II allowed Hitler to remain unopposed and allowed the Holocaust? Or was it morally acceptable for the U.S. to defeat his Evil by fighting alongside even the likes of the Communist powers?
You see, what you keep on neglecting is that by staying out of the fray of battle (e.g., "sitting out"), you allow such Evil to go unopposed.
I'm sorry but, personally, to allow the universal accessibility of abortion which Obama guarantees and will facilitate and fund by tax-payer dollars is a future I refuse to let alone and go unopposed.
Dear Zippy,
I am most interested in this line of reasoning. I don't know that I disagree, but I would like to see how it conforms to the requirement to participate in the system of governance as required by the Catechism.
I would say that not going to the polls is absolutely not an option. The minimum one must do to accomplish what is incumbent upon us by morality and by Church teaching is to go to the polls and register a vote for NOTA (non of the above) or the write-in candidate of one's choice.
One could argue that this is throwing away a vote, however, it does seem to answer both your argument and the imperative (which I also believe to be a moral one) to actively participate in one's method of governance to the extent allowed.
Or perhaps there are other ways. I can say that this has worked well for me in several elections. (Indeed, in almost all of those I've been eligible to vote in.)
Steven
I would say that not going to the polls is absolutely not an option.
Well, I think there are respectable reasons to vote third party/write in, as I've mentioned in other threads. However, voting TP/WI is a different act from deliberate abstention.
Suppose we were faced with the option of voting for the following:
1) I choose to nuke Hiroshima.
2) I choose to insist on unconditional surrender and initiate a land invasion in which we are morally certain millions of innocents will die.
3) I affirm the validity of the process which leaves us only choices #1 or #2 as a possible outcome, and I support and agree to abide by the outcome, but I nonetheless would rather do this other thing instead.
4) I do not affirm the validity of #1 and #2 being the only possible outcomes. I'll spend an hour before the Blessed Sacrament praying instead.
It seems to me that TP/WI votes are #3, and vocal abstention is #4. Since they are different acts, in general it is a prudential judgement as to which one better discharges one's duty to the common good. (As we get more specific of course we can narrow what that implies for a particular case).
I would say that not going to the polls is absolutely not an option.
The U.S. Bishops said this, in "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 goods."
Max Kolbe -- thanks for that!
This part is notable:
"...after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position"
Even then, one does not vote against Obama because he favors his opponent; one will do so in order to defeat the anticipated Evil that an Obama presidency portends.
The presidential signing of the FOCA is not something Obama may do; it is something that he will do; the ramifications of which will not only mean a continuance of the current holocaust but will even force states to wholly embrace it.
"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.
The Blackadder Says:
It's not clear to me how "refusing to play the game" would help minimize evil in your scenario. Maybe a person in this scenario should conclude that minimizing evil is a hopeless goal and just give up. But if he thinks that by "refusing to play the game" he is actually minimizing evil then he is fooling himself.
But if he thinks that by "refusing to play the game" he is actually minimizing evil then he is fooling himself.
But how is participating one evil or the other (even if the other is a lesser evil) minimizing evil to a greater extent than engaging in neither evil?
If vote for A = 100% evil, vote for B=50% evil, and no vote = 0% evil, voting B gets you to comit 50% evil. At least, that is my understanding.
by staying out of the fray of battle (e.g., "sitting out"), you allow such Evil to go unopposed.
But may you oppose an evil by engaging in a lesser evil? If you do not give your support to an evil, are you not opposing it?
Zippy,
All of the things the vote abstainer may do "instead" of voting may be done alongside voting as well (he can spend an hour in front of Blessed Sacrament after voting, etc). So none of those things fulfills, or stands as the moral equivalent of, doing all he can to toward his obligations on behalf of the state.
Maybe a vote (even for third party candidate) would be non-productive toward a healthy society. If in the long term the voter thinks that voting is useless and the social order, or at least the governing order, needs to be radically changed, then at least a vote for a write-in candidate (for NOTA, or Mickey Mouse, or Jesus Christ) could be used to further the point that we need a different system. A non-vote does not make that point nearly as well, since it can be thought to stem from mere indifference at least as well as from a judgment of voting's ineffectiveness.
If the system is so gravely disordered that one cannot reasonably participate in it, then it requires being brought down and replaced. I don't think non-voting is realistically a helpful part of a strategy of to do that.
(By the way, even in the situation where not voting for President becomes a good option, that does nothing to constrain voting in all the other elections on the ballot - local, state, referenda. So it still would not make sense to stay home, unless voting for ALL those offices is useless. Which would be pretty weird.)
The Blackadder Says:
It is the candidate, not the vote, that is the lesser evil (or, to be more precise, it is the candidate's policies which are the lesser evil). From the fact that a candidate represents the lesser of two evils it does not follow that by voting for that candidate one is engaging in evil.
...All of the things the vote abstainer may do "instead" of voting may be done alongside voting as well
Well, no, they literally cannot. We are finite beings, only capable of doing a finite number of things.
...(for NOTA, or Mickey Mouse, or Jesus Christ) could be used to further the point that we need a different system.
That though would also be personal affirmation that this is a perfectly legitimate way of doing things, in this day and in this context. 90% of the 'content' of a vote is personal affirmation of and assent to the legitimacy of the process and outcome. (This is easily seen by the vehemence with which not-voting is opposed, despite the manifest unacceptability of the ballot options; and also by the fact that, for example, even the Soviets held elections).
It's not clear to me how "refusing to play the game" would help minimize evil in your scenario.
Abstaining would help to minimize evil, over the long term, by changing the game itself; and the players. Abstention is the only game-changing strategy. Everything else is just playing along.
If the system is so gravely disordered that one cannot reasonably participate in it, then it requires being brought down and replaced.
That is absolutely false, though a common trope. Justifying armed insurrection is very difficult to do. Add "either vote or engage in armed insurrection" to the list of false modernist choices.
Indeed the fact that people of presumably good will take this lesson away from the election liturgy is yet another black mark against it.
Dear Max Kolbe,
Thank you. I often need to be reminded.
Dear Zippy,
You can consent and agree with the mode of government, but contra your opinion in the matter, I do not see the act of voting as agreement with the outcome. One can look upon the democractic system as a right a proper form of government, recognizing that the results of that form can often be incorrect. So, I'm in the camp that says that placing a vote is not opting into the system nor agreeing to the outcome, it is an attempt to affect the outcome, which, if it fails, we must live with, but we do not consent to.
Futhermore, sitting and spending an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament ultimately has the same end as voting against both--you are stuck with, and have consented to what has occurred. The only way not to consent, in this theory of government is to leave. By living in the country so governed, you countenance that government every bit as much as if you had voted.
Don't get me wrong--I do agree with most of what you say regarding this. But I'm not certain I agree with the reasoning behind it. There is something deeply flawed in the assumptions--and when the axioms are flawed, the proof cannot be completed.
shalom
Steven
...you are stuck with, and have consented to what has occurred.
I like you a lot Steven, but that is just baloney. That something happens beyond our control does not imply that we consent to it. If it did, then you and I have consented to 40 million abortions.
Oh, golly. I posted in the wrong thread. Blame it on tabbed browsing.
Let me re-post here, and then if you get the chance, you can remove my post under the "Consent Does Not Determine Justice" thread:
Abstaining would help to minimize evil, over the long term, by changing the game itself; and the players. Abstention is the only game-changing strategy. Everything else is just playing along.
It's not clear to me that abstention is the only way to change the game (nor is it clear that abstention will, in the long run, change the game to one with less evil, but I'm not going to argue that point currently). Why wouldn't writing in a legitimate candidate (e.g. Joe Schriner) send the message to the "establishment" that we the people are tired of the two-party system and allow the third party candidates to rid themselves of the Nader-Perot-nutcase stigma?
Your premise seems to be that there is something in the voting process that inherently leaves us with dumb-and-dumber as choices, at least that's what it seems to me when you advocate abstention as the only option to change the system. I'm not sure that this premise is correct.
On the other hand, I'm significantly further from the DC beltway than you, so maybe I have a naive midwestern view of the US government. I hear that political insanity falls off exponentially the further you get outside of I-495.
Ah, and I just played along.
Here is the reply I posted in the other thread. We can continue this here, if you like:
Why wouldn't writing in a legitimate candidate (e.g. Joe Schriner) send the message to the "establishment" that we the people are tired of the two-party system and allow the third party candidates to rid themselves of the Nader-Perot-nutcase stigma?
That is, I reaffirm again, a reasonable choice given certain factual premeses. But it is predicated on the belief that the rabbit hole only goes down so far, and no further: that (e.g.) the abortion holocaust and the rest of the freight train to which it is attached is the outcome of bad ballots and unviable third parties, and nothing more: that a minor tweak to the rules of the game will suffice to change tracks, if you will.
How far the rabbit hole actually goes down is a question of fact.
My argument is that it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the rabbit hole goes down further than bad ballot options and unviable third parties, and that vocal abstention is a perfectly reasonable choice for one who has reached that conclusion.
Dear Zippy,
Let's look at a little differently. You claim that participation in the voting system is implicit agreement with every item on every candidate's agenda. (Hence you can use Hiroshima and land invasion as examples.) But I can say while voting that I do not buy into either one of these systems, nor do I consent to it and therefore, I am voting for someone whose views support e=neither of these things.
That's what I'm trying to get at. You present 3 as a "morally inferior" system, whereas I would propose that 3 represent just and proper dissent, particularly in my write-in or None of the ABove is an express disapproval of what everyone else is consenting to by voting for one or the other.
There's nothing wrong with an hour in front of the blessed sacrament, but voting for neither candidate is no more consent to the results than number 4. Again, what matters, it seems to me is the intent express in the voting. And if the intent is to participate in the system we've been given (and one for which I thank God in comparison to other methods of governance throughout history), then agreement with the outcome is neither implied nor accepted.
So, too long to say, my disagreement is with your implication that voting at all is an agreement to accept every position represented by the outcome of the election. Voting is a societal agreement on method of government, and one can criticize and disagree with the outcome entirely. Your vote is not consent to the result, but an attempt to affect the result.
It may be on this matter that we disagree.
And by the way, of course you are correct in your correction of my previous statement. Sometimes just don't get to what I really want to say--for whatever reason. That's why it's nice to discuss.
You present 3 as a "morally inferior" system, whereas I would propose that 3 represent just and proper dissent, particularly in my write-in or None of the ABove is an express disapproval of what everyone else is consenting to by voting for one or the other.
Well, I think that depends on the facts of the matter. As I mentioned to Brandon, whether (e.g.) the abortion holocaust and the other things to which it is attached is a reflection of bad options on the ballot, unviable third parties, and nothing more, is a question of fact. And the factual answer to that question drives whether a third party/write in option is the better act, or outright abstention is the better act.
Dear Zippy,
I need to apologize for a statement in the previous which implies that sitting before the Blessed Sacrament is just one amongst many. Once again, in my hurry, I miss my point--which is one can do both 3 and 4 (under the conditions I note) and still be acting in good conscience.
Obviously, spending time before the Blessed Sacrament is in no way commensurate with any other activity; however, that time in front of the Blessed Sacrament should ultimate result in actions (for people in the laity) that lead to "laudem gloriae."
My apologies.
Shalom,
Steven
Dear Zippy,
One last point, I have no difficulty at all with vocal abstention--never have, doubt that I ever will. So please don't take my arguments for another alternative as an implication that vocal abstention is not a possibility. That is simply not the case at all.
shalom,
STeven
Steven,
Let me be clear that one can indeed vote third party with a good conscience, as far as I am concerned. I think we are discussing which act is better - which is a fact-dependent determination. Obviously we should try to do the best act, to the best of our ability to determine what it is. But a sub-optimally good act in a context of factual ambiguity is not an evil act. I think third party or write in is a perfectly reasonable choice for someone who disagrees with me on the factual assessment, and sometimes I even disagree with myself on the facts.
Zippy's likely presidential voting record:
1980/1984/1988/1992/1996/2000/2004/2008: (write in) Zippy
Indeed, why should anyone accept the lesser of two evils when you can write in yourself?
My argument is that it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the rabbit hole goes down further than bad ballot options and unviable third parties, and that vocal abstention is a perfectly reasonable choice for one who has reached that conclusion.
I think that your "rabbit hole" goes back to the fundamental fallen nature of mankind, and as such it does indeed goes a long way down. However, I don't know that negates the idea that the present system can be fixed to provide us a selection of decent men to pick from by indicating to "them" that we are willing to vote for them when given the opportunity. Seriously, imagine the news heyday that would occur if Joe Schriner got like 5% of the write-in vote nationally. Don't you think that people would take notice? Even if it didn't give him any delegates because it was split evenly over the entire nation, I think it would make everyone sit up and take notice. And then, in another four years, we might have someone else decent to vote for.
Please note that I'm not trying to say that vocal abstention isn't another way to try to affect change. Like you say, I'm more interested in the best way to affect the change, especially given my own personal abilities. (Going back to your idea that voting changes primarily the voter, but I'm not willing to give up the idea that someone notices who I vote for).
I think that your "rabbit hole" goes back to the fundamental fallen nature of mankind, and as such it does indeed goes a long way down.
Well, yes. But if I am trying to fight smallpox or abortion that level of generality isn't particularly helpful. "Evil and suffering are a consequence of the Fall" is simultaneously true and unhelpful. At issue is whether write-in/third-party, on the one hand, or vocal abstention, on the other, is the best thing to do.
Post a Comment