Month: October 2008

Elections, Part 6: The Zippy Argument

Continued from Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

UPDATED: Part 6 comments link (page 4) (TypePad, this is getting old)

SDG here (not Jimmy).

In my last couple of installments, I’ve argued for the moral legitimacy of voting for the candidate you regard as the least problematic viable candidate. Given two viable candidates X and Y, to believe that the common good would be better served by a Y administration than an X administration more or less entails hoping that Y wins rather than X, which in turn more or less entails hoping that other voters like oneself who share the preference for Y over X (“Y-friendlies”) actually vote for Y in greater numbers than those on the other side who prefer X vote for X. And what we hope to see others like ourselves do, we ought to do ourselves.

I have also argued that an individual vote for candidate Y can always be seen as contributing something worthwhile, not only if one lives in a toss-up state, but even if one lives in a solidly Y-friendly or even X-friendly state. An election is not entirely a threshold event; the popular vote and the margin of victory does matter insofar as it may contribute to a sense of mandate or realignment around a candidate’s agenda. This is not to deny that there might also be good to be pursued voting for a third-party candidate; my case is that both voting quixotic and voting pragmatic (by, um, different voters of course) may be seen as morally licit ways of attempting to do good.

This point of view has been vigorously resisted by some, including Mark Shea and Zippy Catholic. Mark and Zippy are both — in the sense previously defined — “McCain-friendly,” not meaning that they like McCain at all, but that they prefer him to Obama. Mark has said that he would vote for McCain if he thought there were proportionate reason to do so, and Zippy has said that if one could push a button and make McCain president by fiat, as opposed to casting a negligible vote for him, it would be legitimate to do so.

However, Mark and Zippy argue that the actual negligible impact of any one vote does not constitute a proportionate reason to cast a vote for a candidate who supports direct killing of the innocent, as McCain supports embryonic stem-cell research.

Note, incidentally, that even if McCain were to have a Damascus-road experience on ESCR, Mark and Zippy might still be obliged to oppose him, on the grounds that McCain’s opposition to abortion allows for exceptions for rape and incest, which is still killing the innocent. And even if he changed his mind on that, they might still have to oppose him if he allowed for abortion only to save the life of the mother, but failed to differentiate between direct and indirect abortion, since Catholic moral theology generally considers direct abortion to be killing the innocent.

For those refuse to vote for any candidate who fails to condemn all killing of the innocent, there is no major-party candidate since Roe v. Wade, including Ronald Reagan, they could have supported. I’m not sure they could even vote for Chuck Baldwin (I don’t know whether Baldwin distinguishes direct abortion from indirect).

The issue is further complicated by the fact that Mark and Zippy are not merely voting quixotic, but campaigning quixotic — actively discouraging voters from choosing either major-party ticket, encouraging them to vote quixotic instead. Here their potential contribution to the outcome becomes much harder to calculate. Mark’s blog is widely read; his ideas reach tens of thousands of readers, and ripple out to innumerable others. There is no way to know how many votes next week could be affected by quixotic advocacy from Mark and others like him. In principle, it is not impossible that such advocacy could play a significant role in undercutting support for McCain and clearing the way for an Obama victory.

That said, if Mark and Zippy believe that voting for either of the major-party candidates is morally unjustified by any proportionate reason, it may be reasonable for them to seek to discourage their fellow Catholics from engaging in unjustified behavior, however inconvenient the consequences may be. The fundamental question is: Are their concerns warranted? Is their reasoning sound? Does voting for a candidate who supports any form of killing the innocent involve remote material cooperation in evil in a way or to a degree disproportionate to the good of trying to defeat an even worse candidate?

Continue reading “Elections, Part 6: The Zippy Argument”

Election novena

I agree with Mark Shea in echoing Fr. John Corapi’s call for nine days of prayer, from Monday, October 27 through Tuesday, November 4.

If you’d like a set prayer for the novena, Fr. Corapi has one for you.

I would also humbly recommend fasting, and the rosary.

Note: Please, for this one post, absolutely no electioneering, partisan or otherwise divisive comments in the combox. Thank you!

Elections, Part 5: Thresholds, fuzziness and realignments

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

UPDATE: new comments link for Part 5 (TypePad says they’re working on this!)

New comments link for Part 4 (TypePad says they’re working on this!)

SDG here (not Jimmy) with more thoughts on voting.

In Part 4 I proposed what I called the “intuitive and obvious” claim that “you vote for the candidate you hope to see win.” The first point in need of further consideration is what is meant by “the candidate you hope to see win.”

Whatever the merits of voting any way at all, in the end any election will produce a winner whose administration will have practical implications for the common good. Such implications, it should be noted, are broad-based, extending not only to the implementation or non-implementation of specific policy initiatives, but also to such effects as public advocacy of or opposition to key principles on public discourse and cultural sensibilities, the stamp of a candidate’s administration on the party and the nation, and of course the long-term effects of a candidate’s judicial nominees.

Let’s suppose two major-party candidates X and Y. Candidate X strongly supports several intrinsically immoral policies — virtually every such policy on the market, let’s suppose — while candidate Y is largely opposed to most of them, though with various qualifying asterisks and footnotes. (For example, let’s suppose that Y favors embryonic stem-cell research, though not as robustly as X, and while Y is anti-abortion he allows loopholes that may not be compatible with Catholic teaching, and so forth. What? It’s a thought experiment.)

Candidate X is highly likely to vigorously reinforce and strengthen the culture of death in various ways: legislative support for intrinsically evil policies, increased public funding for abortion, evil-activist justices to the Supreme Court as well as lower-level judges, and so forth.

In virtually all of these respects, we recognize that candidate Y is highly likely to be an improvement on candidate X, even if Y still has significant problems. Y will oppose most intrinsically immoral policies, though he may advance some, if not to the extent that X would. It seems likely that Y’s judicial nominees would be an improvement upon X’s, though far from certain that they would be particularly good. The country would be spared the corrosive cultural effects of X’s public advocacy of intrinsic evils.

Of course X would accomplish some good things in office; so presumably would Y, or so would any candidate. It could even be that the implications of a victory for X would include some positive effects on the very issues where Y advocates intrinsically immoral policies. Almost any catastrophe will include some good effects. It doesn’t change the fact that a victory for X is a catastrophe, and that Y would be significantly preferable.

At this point it seems fairly clear that we may say we do not want to see X win — that, of the two possible outcomes, an X administration would be the more undesirable outcome for the common good. Thus it would seem that, of the two possible outcomes, a Y administration is the preferred outcome.

Yet if candidate Y supports even one intrinsically evil policy, can we speak of “hoping” that he wins? Is that “hoping” for evil?

In almost any race there are assorted candidates flying well below the radar — Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney. If we could, many of us would pick one of these marginal or quixotic candidates to send to the White House. Many do in fact cast votes for such candidates, or if necessary even write in the candidates of their choice. Why shouldn’t the rest of us follow suit? Why settle for the lesser of two evils if there is a better choice?

Continue reading “Elections, Part 5: Thresholds, fuzziness and realignments”

You Are Probably Perfectly Safe

BusUK

(AP Photo)

I find this story amusing on several levels. It seems, according to this AP story at Fox News,
that atheists in London plan to buy advertising – in the form of
posters – on thirty or so city buses, in order to promote their cheery
and robust philosophy.

The signs are to read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.".

Probably.

They
hope, I'm sure, to present the bright side of the idea that the
universe is meaningless and empty. That is to say, since your life and
your relationships have no ultimate meaning at all, you can do as you
please and enjoy yourself. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you
(and everyone) will be a mere sack of inert chemicals and will
thereafter dissolve into your composite elements and that will be
that… probably.

You can rest assured that there is no eternal
judge, no one to pay out justice and mercy, no life after death, no
heaven or hell… that is, very likely not.

At least
these signs acknowledge, in a backhanded way, that this is the most
that Science™ could possibly have to say against the existence of
God… "we see no scientific evidence for it". Admittedly, Richard
Dawkins (who contributed a good chunk of the money for this charitable
enterprise) doesn't like the "probably" part, which was a qualifier
more or less forced on the atheists by the bus company in order (in
their view) to keep from positively offending religious folk. He sees
no reason to place these kinds of limits on his philosophical hubris by
leaving room for the possibility of being in error. He knows
there is no God with exactly the same level of self assurance that
Pierre Pachet had when he declared that Louis Pasteur's theory of germs
was a "ridiculous fiction" or that Lord Kelvin experienced as he
announced that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.".

But
the bus company (apparently afraid of running afoul of their own
advertising guidelines) insisted on some kind of qualifier, which turns
out to be the only sane or entertaining bit of the entire sentence in
which it appears. The second sentence is simply inane and could have
been tagged on by any group; Buddhists – "Life is an illusion. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."… Muslims – "There is no God but God, and Mohamed is His Prophet. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."… Insurance companies – "ABC Insurance is rated #1 in customer service. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.".

There
is entailed in this also the curious idea that atheists now find
evangelism and missionary work – that is, assertively trying to convert
people out of their own presently held beliefs – to be quite
commendable. Given that this has been a favorite charge against the
Church – that we don't respect others' right to their own beliefs and
culture, that we won't let things be – this is quite a step for
atheists. They now give tacit assent to the importance of "spreading
the good news", and it is refreshing and comforting that we now enjoy
their understanding and sympathy, at least on that point. Truth is
truth, after all, and sharing the truth with people is a good thing in
itself, apart from concerns about cultural niceties or hurt feelings.

The campaign was conceived, appropriately enough, by a comedy writer, Ariane Sherine, who the article states

…came up with the idea after
seeing a series of Christian posters on London buses. She said she
visited the Web site promoted on one ad and found it told nonbelievers
they would spend eternity in torment in hell.

"I
thought it would be a really positive thing to counter that by putting
forward a much happier and more upbeat advert, saying 'Don't worry,
you're not going to hell,'" said Sherine, 28. "Atheists believe this is the only life we have, and we should enjoy it."

She goes on –

"A lot of people say trying to organize atheists is like herding cats. The last couple of days shows that is not true"

This
concept of organized atheists made two things spring to mind; for one
thing, I wondered if later generations of young free-thinking atheists
will be fond of saying to their exasperated atheist parents, "I believe
in atheism, just not organized atheism".

Secondly,
I tried to remember what organized atheism has looked like in recent
history and couldn't get out of my head images of the disciplined,
assembly-line columns of Hitler's stormtroopers, the gulags of Soviet
Russia and the killing fields of Pol Pot. They kept appearing behind my
eyes, like a cloud of gnats that won't be waved away. But then, history
has never been my field, and I'm sure I must have overlooked the
numerous benevolent regimes of the more kindly organized atheist states.

There are some sensible London theists who are responding, I think in an appropriate way to the hubbub;

The religious think tank
Theos said it had donated $82 to the campaign, on the grounds that the
ads were so bad they would probably attract people to religion.

"It
tells people to 'stop worrying,' which is hardly going to be a great
comfort for those who are concerned about losing jobs or homes in the
recession," said Theos director Paul Woolley.

"Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity."

(Visit Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine


What reduces abortions?

The usual hat tip to AmP for highlighting the USCCB website’s brief but important essay by Richard M. Doerflinger, Associate Director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. bishops:

What Reduces Abortions?

Sometimes election years produce more policy myths than good ideas. This year one myth is about abortion. It goes like this: The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision is here to stay, and that’s fine because laws against abortion don’t reduce abortions much anyway. Rather, “support for women and families” will greatly reduce abortions, without changing the law or continuing a “divisive” abortion debate. …

Various false claims are used to bolster this myth. It is said that over three-quarters of women having abortions cite expense as the most important factor in their decision. Actually the figure is less than one-fourth, 23%. It is said that abortion rates declined dramatically (30%) during the Clinton years, but the decline stopped under the ostensibly pro-life Bush administration. Actually the abortion rate has dropped 30% from 1981 to 2005; the decline started 12 years before Clinton took office, and has continued fairly steadily to the present day.

Doerflinger points out that current laws restricting abortion, though inadequate, are effective:

In 1980 the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment, and federally funded abortions went from 300,000 a year to nearly zero. With its decisions in Webster (1989) and Casey (1992), the Court began to uphold other abortion laws previously invalidated under Roe. States passed hundreds of modest but effective laws: bans on use of public funds and facilities; informed consent laws; parental involvement when minors seek abortion; etc. Dr. Michael New’s rigorous research has shown that these laws significantly reduce abortions.

Obama’s stated #1 priority would put an end to all this:

By contrast, a pending federal “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) would knock down current laws reducing abortions, and require public programs for pregnant women to fund abortion. No one supporting that bill can claim to favor reducing abortions.

Doerflinger’s conclusion:

Many women are pressured toward abortion, and they need our help. The pressures are partly, but only partly, economic in nature. Women are influenced by husbands, boyfriends, parents and friends, and by a culture and legal system that tells them the child they carry has no rights and is of no consequence. Law cannot solve all problems, but it can tell us which solutions are unacceptable – and today Roe still teaches that killing the unborn child is an acceptable solution, even a “right.” Without ever forgetting the need to support pregnant women and their families, that tragic and unjust error must be corrected if we are to build a society that respects all human life.

GET THE STORY.

To Kmiec, Cafardi, Kaveny et al: Are you listening? At all?

To my quxotic voting pro-life friends: Two unassailable truths to bear in mind.

1. John McCain does not deserve your vote.

2. If Obama loses — to anyone — it will be a victory for life.

The comments are back… sort of

SDG here with an administrative blog note. Some of y’all noticed that a bunch of the comments in the "Elections, Voting and Morality, Part 4" combox seemed to disappear mysteriously yesterday.

Well, it turns out that they were still there… but you couldn’t get to them, because TypePad changed how the combox handles long lists of posts. There is now a 50-comment limit per page, and to see additional comments you have to click "Next / Previous" links at the bottom of the combox. (But you couldn’t see the "Next / Previous" links before either, because the blog needed template updates to display them.)

You can also just go directly to the url for the last page in the combox. For example, the "Elections, Voting and Morality, Part 4" combox currently ends here. (Don’t be fooled by the late-breaking "Hegelian Mambo" reference — this is the current end of the combox!)

In which Mark Shea and SDG try to clarify

SDG here with two clarifications, one from me and one from Mark Shea.

In a blog post entitled "Steve Greydanus takes Exception to my Choice to Go Third Party," Mark Shea writes:

I don’t believe I’ve ever said that voting for McCain would be a mortal sin. If I somehow inadvertently gave that impression (as I have somehow managed to give people the impression I’m not voting despite my repeated statements to the contrary), then please know I think no such thing. What you are hearing here is how I am doing the moral calculus on my own voting. Since mortal sin requires not just grave matter but freedom and knowledge (which are unknowable to me in the case of other people) I make no judgement here as I make no judgement in other matters. I can’t see a way to find a proportional justification for voting for McCain and I say so. But I freely grant that others might see what I cannot.

Here is my clarification: I haven’t taken exception to Mark’s "choice to go third party," or anyone else’s. On the contrary, I have said over and over that voting third party is within the scope of legitimate prudential judgment.

My view is that both voting pragmatic (in this election for McCain) and voting quixotic (for some third-party candidate) are in principle valid ways of seeking to accomplish good. This is in contrast to voting for Obama, which I do not believe is a valid way of seeking to accomplish good in this election.

What I took exception to was what I took to be Mark’s express opinion that voting for McCain is objectively wrong. But does Mark acknowledge saying this?

Mark slices the pie at a different angle by saying that he doesn’t believe he’s said that "voting for McCain would be a mortal sin." "Mortal sin" is not the same as "objectively wrong," since, as Mark himself notes, "mortal sin requires not just grave matter but freedom and knowledge," which I take it for granted that Mark doesn’t judge.

In fact, I explicitly said so all the way back in my initial post on the subject:

Some caveats here are necessary. In leaning toward such views, Mark naturally means to express an opinion, not a definitive fact. It is an opinion about objective right and wrong, but still an opinion, and Mark would certainly acknowledge that it is an area of permissible dispute, and in principle he could be wrong. Second, I take it for granted that Mark makes no judgment about the culpability of McCain advocates, any more than either he or I judges Kmiec’s culpability for his Obama advocacy. Third, Mark clearly doesn’t put McCain advocacy on a par with Obama advocacy, either regarding plausibility or degree of evil. Still, it does seem that Mark feels or has felt that there are two unequal but objectively wrong choices — voting for either of the two major candidates — and only one morally legitimate course, not voting for either one.

So the question is not "mortal sin," but objective wrongness.

Mark goes on to say, "I can’t see a way to find a proportional justification for voting for McCain and I say so. But I freely grant that others might see what I cannot."

The first sentence seems to entail that, in fact, Mark does believe that voting for McCain is objectively wrong. The second sentence doesn’t deny this belief; rather, Mark simply acknowledges the possibility that he could be wrong in this opinion, as I already noted I assumed from the outset.

Mark may be tentative and humble about his opinion that voting for McCain is objectively wrong, but it still seems to be his opinion; and it is to that opinion — not Mark’s actual vote — that I take exception, and to which this series of posts is addressed.

P.S. This post is not an invitation to regurgitate established talking points without contributing to the discussion. (Those of you to whom I am, and am not, talking know who you are.) Thank you.