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.
I’d say that’s about right. If I didn’t think it objectively wrong, I’d vote for McCain.
I think the permanent situation we find ourselves in is this: *every* election we will have a GOP candidate who is basically tepid about prolife issues v. a Dem candidate who is a zealous proabort. That means *every* election we will be faced with the choice of supporting the GOP candidate who will slowly acquiesce to the culture of death and will demand that prolifers do the same under pain of being thrown under the bus by the party. Thus, over time the GOP will accomplish with slow geological pressure what the Dems have not been able to accomplish with hammer blows and insults: getting the prolife movement to not merely abandon its principles but even begin to defend evil as good (as is now done regularly when defending the Lesser Cannibal as a Good while ridiculing all those fussy perfectionists who want to go on defending what the prolife movment stood for before the advent of George Bush).
I repeat: this dynamic will continue in all future elections. Every four years we will be commanded to “not make the perfect the enemy of the good” and every four years, the GOP will do as it has done the past 20 years, slowly dropping off “essentials”.
That’s Zippy’s point. It’s Lydia McGrew’s too.
Since there will *never* be a time when the GOP candidate cannot say to pro-lifers “Vote for me or get thrown under the bus” I think it is wise for the prolife movement to husband what clout they still have and begin to break out of the Abused Spouse role now, rather than wait till later when they are even weaker.
Thanks, Mark.
My answer is that, if you are right, then the culture is inexorably sliding into the abyss anyway, and there is no course of action we can undertake to stop it, and the most we can do is slow the slide. And if that is the most we can do, then it is worth doing.
I don’t care about being the Abused Spouse. I care about not leaving the kids alone at the mercy of the Abuser… and his Evil Twin.
If I can’t save them all, I want to save some. I want to save some more than I want to talk about how I want to save them all.
Your course of action, although within the bounds of legitimate prudential judgment, if generally followed, would seem most likely merely to allow the slide to proceed unencumbered by what little resistance we can offer.
But I don’t in fact believe that it’s a matter of slowing the slide. For one thing, we lose ground in some areas, but gain in others. The Supreme Court today is still more evil than not, but it’s much less evil than it used to be, and another justice or two could really make the difference.
For another thing, Obama is SO evil that even if McCain does nothing but maintain the status quo (and I really believe he will do more than that), it will be a victory.
I’m not drinking any McCain Kool-Aid here. I’m saying that (a) it would be better for the common good with him in office than Obama, and that (b) that is proportionate reason to vote for him.
Mark, you say,
“I think the permanent situation we find ourselves in is this: *every* election we will have a GOP candidate who is basically tepid about prolife issues v. a Dem candidate who is a zealous proabort…”
BUT what IF Sarah Palin were to rise to the candidacy in the future? As far as I know she is actually truly pro-life, as opposed to all these others we’ve had put before us. It’s amazing to see such a pro-life person as her being taken seriously enough to be on the ticket! Isn’t it worth a shot, even if we have to vote for McCain to make it happen? What a step in the right direction!
I don’t support everything McCain stands for. For example, his support for immigration means that there will be an endless stream of Democratic voters and the demographic transformation of America.
Yet as Steve points out, maintaining the status quo isn’t such a bad thing and may buy us some time. Take John Paul II. He is called “John Paul the Great,” but can anyone tell me what he did to stop, much less reverse, the spread of liberalism in the Catholic church?
I’d like to think that an Obama victory will result in people waking up, but “the worse, the better” isn’t likely. Most of the time it’s the worse, the worse.
So, I’ll be voting for McCain. I hope he wakes up and sees that immigration will be the death of the Republican party, but I’m not sure.
Look at it this way. You have four candidates for whom you can vote. Now, imagine having to explain your choice to the unborn of the next four years. In other words, those in immediate mortal peril.
1. McCain – “I picked the candidate most likely save you.”
2. Obama – “I picked the candidate most likely to advocate your murder.”
3. Third Party Candidate – “I allowed the advocate of your murder to be elected. How? I voted for someone with no chance to win which took a vote away from the one who could have helped.”
4. No vote – “I allowed the advocate of your murder to be elected. How? I didn’t use my vote to elect the one who could have helped. In fact, I didn’t use it at all.”
I understand and appreciate that those in this and other catholic blogs advocating either a no vote or a third party vote are trying, in good faith, to find a path towards a long term solution better than any available now. However, I find it difficult to accept a path, however laudable, that plans for the future at the expense of the present. There are children who need the help of a pro-life (even a tepid one) candidate now. Not later. I cannot believe that God expects us to tacitly allow the deaths of millions while we plan for the great revolution.
Mark Shea draws attention above to the deplorable state of recent presidential elections where pro-life voters are presented with unsatisfactory candidates from both major parties; even the Republican party which retains a pro-life plank in its platform.
I’ve said it on his blog and I’ll say it here: I know of no evidence to suggest that if the majority of pro-lifers were to vote for a third party candidate and cost the Republicans the presidency, the Republicans would pay the slightest attention. And I’m afraid there simply aren’t enough pro-life voters for a pro-life third party candidate to have even a remote chance at the presidency any time in the near future.
The best and most effective way for pro-lifers to make their discontent with candidates felt by either major party is to support, vote for, even campaign for, principled pro-life candidates for political office **at the local level**.
Candidates for the presidency don’t come from nowhere; most make their names in local and state politics before running for national office. Barack Obama would not be on the ballot this presidential election if he had not been elected to the Illinois state senate.
If we truly want acceptable candidates in presidential elections, we *must* be involved in local politics. It is much more likely that the majors parties will pay attention when they lose multiple seats in the legislature, than when they lose a presidential election because of third party voters.
My answer is that, if you are right, then the culture is inexorably sliding into the abyss anyway, and there is no course of action we can undertake to stop it, and the most we can do is slow the slide. And if that is the most we can do, then it is worth doing.
I think, separately from my argument about specific acts of voting, it is possible to stop the slide into the abyss: but only if we (among other things) stop voting for more despicable, heinous evil just because it is less evil than the Other Viable Brand On Offer. Continuing on the path we’ve been on merely contributes to the decline over the long term. Only in changing the game completely, rather than fatalistically pulling the lever for the least bad mass murderer on offer, is there any hope.
Fine Zippy, you’ve already said that! The question is, how can that be done on time for the current election?
The question is, how can that be done on time for the current election?
It can’t. Nothing you or I can do between now and the election will change the outcome. Nothing. That’s the beauty of Moloch’s plan and secular liturgy for pro-lifers: he gets them all worked up right at the point where it is too late to change things, and convinces them in their panic to cement the foundation and lay the groundwork themselves for more Moloch victories later.
An act contrary to the virtue of prudence is objectively wrong and can be gravely objectively wrong and mortally sinful.
So, if the OP is opining that it would be imprudent to vote for a third party candidate, he is opining that it would be objectively wrong and potentially formally sinful to do so. There’s no such thing in moral theology as something that is imprudent but not morally wrong or imprudent but not objectively wrong. There’s also no place in moral theology for denying that there is a fact of the matter as to whether something is prudent or imprudent. The opacity v. apparentness of the fact prescinds from the existence of the fact.
One man may judge an act to be prudent and another may judge the same act under the same circumstances to be imprudent. The men cannot both be right. Both of their judgments may be reasonably formed or sincere, but at least one judgment is objectively deficient.
Perhaps the OP meant to speak of “intrinsically wrong.” It is true that if something is a matter of prudential judgment that it is not a matter where the act is, in its object, intrinsically evil. It is also true however that if something is a matter of prudential judgement that it just like any other moral issue is a matter of “objective right and wrong”, at least when “objective” is given its common parlance definition.
If the OP means only to say that voting for McCain is, objectively, prudent and that voting for a particular third party candidate is also, objectively, prudent, then that is one thing; otherwise, there is a perfect symmetry between his moral criticism and those of his opponents.
I think the term “prudential judgment” is misused and misunderstood by many. It is a matter of prudential judgment to judge that the drinking of three glasses of wine by an alcoholic is imprudent. Assuming that judgment accurate, it would be an objective fact that the drinking of three glasses of wine by an alcoholic is imprudent and it would be objectively wrong for an alcoholic to drink three glasses of wine. It is also a matter of prudential judgment to judge that drinking 20 glasses of wine is imprudent and gravely sinful. Assuming that judgment accurate, it would be an objective fact that drinking 20 glasses of wine is gravely imprudent and sinful and it would be objectively and gravely wrong for anyone to drink 20 glasses of wine. The term “prudential judgment” just refers to those judgments which require the application of moral laws to contingent facts; it does not deny and indeed it affirms that there is an objectively right and wrong prudential judgment corresponding to an objectively right and wrong act. All acts under their respective circumstances are each either objectively prudent or objectively imprudent. Some acts of imprudence can be mortal sins; and some improper prudential judgments may themselves include mortal sin in their making. That something is a matter of prudential judgment does not mean that one should feel that one’s conscience is in the clear.
If so, then I humbly ask you:
Do you think that the acknowledgment of that FACT works for the argument that you’ve been trying to make here, or against it?
Do you think that the acknowledgment of that FACT works for the argument that you’ve been trying to make here, or against it?
For it, obviously, since my argument is that the prudence of our acts of voting for President in our circumstances rest on outcome independent considerations, not outcome dependent considerations. If nothing you or I can do can be reasonably expected to change the outcome, then obviously that supports my argument.
I think I understand that voting for the lesser of evils is still voting for evil. And that in doing so I compromise myself. I am one of those who lives in a state that is solidly Democratic. So will my vote change that? Unlikely. But I can’t see either not voting or voting for a third party candidate.
Zippy says that Nothing you or I can do between now and the election will change the outcome. Nothing. It seems to me that that point of view leaves out hope. May I can’t change the outcome, but I vote in hope that in God’s providence, it may change anyway.
Oops. Should be Maybe I can’t change the outcome, but I vote in hope that in God’s providence, it may change anyway.
I think, separately from my argument about specific acts of voting, it is possible to stop the slide into the abyss: but only if we (among other things) stop voting for more despicable, heinous evil just because it is less evil than the Other Viable Brand On Offer. Continuing on the path we’ve been on merely contributes to the decline over the long term. Only in changing the game completely, rather than fatalistically pulling the lever for the least bad mass murderer on offer, is there any hope.
Why don’t you lay this out for us? Because I don’t see how a bunch of people sitting out or voting 3rd party changes the game. Ross Perot didn’t change the game, though he might have adjusted the rules a little, and that seems to be about the best case scenario for a 3rd party candidate.
Zippy’s answer appears to be more or less that if we stop voting for despicable, heinous evil, Divine Providence will make things better.
Maybe I can’t change the outcome, but I vote in hope that in God’s providence, it may change anyway.
True, and crucially important; but also quite independent of whether or not you vote for McCain, and the core dispute is over whether there is or is not a proportionate reason to vote for McCain. (Most participants in this discussion agree that there is no proportionate reason to vote for Obama).
Many seem to find it counterintuitive to hope for an Obama loss, on the one hand, and yet reject the idea that there is a proportionate reason to vote for McCain, on the other. The key is in understanding that voting in national elections by its nature is not merely about, and indeed is largely not about, one’s personal influence over the outcome.
“Zippy’s answer appears to be more or less that if we stop voting for despicable, heinous evil, Divine Providence will make things better. ”
I don’t think Zippy would say that. We have no reason perhaps to expect anything (in a temporal sense) but what Tolkien called “a long defeat”.
Zippy seems to be concerned first (almost exclusively) with the moral choice involved in voting and its effects on the voter, not with the worldly, practical results (real or imagined) of the act.
We may not do evil that good may result. If Zippy sees the act of voting for any pro ESCR candidate as an objective evil, then the practical results of that vote can’t be allowed to change the moral calculus.
There is also the likelihood that like a snowboarder out of control on a mountain we will actually go OVER the cliff, before any remedial action can be effective. A President Obama would nominate at least two liberal judges to the Supreme Court, many more to the other federal courts, sign FOCA, take away the conscience rights of Catholics in health care, overturn the Mexico City policy, expand abortion and birth control services around the world paid for by the US taxpayer, etc. etc. etc. It is time to vote tactically. Stragetic will be too late!!!
But that’s crippled reasoning, dear Zippy, for crying out loud. Before addressing that last comment of yours, let me say that, like you said on your last comment on the “Zippy thread” about it, I realize that it is reaching that stage in which the discussing parties start to repeating the same arguments for the fourth or fifth time, and I, for one, don’t think I could be able to make any more comments without repeating or paraphrasing the same points already been made by SDG, Dave Mueller and TMC (as matter of fact, I may even have already done that), something that I despise and have criticized here.
Let me quote you again:
I then asked:
You replied:
Then you pulled a fast one, adding:
Which is not, of course, what we were talking about. I didn’t say anything about that because I don’t think it makes any difference to my argument. I’m afraid everyone here agrees with your initial point (Only in changing the game completely…), but since even yourself agree that it can’t be done on time for this election, the question remains what is the best that can be done before it. Since, as SDG et al. already said, voting for one of the candidates may arguably get him elected, and that is most probably have at least some positive effect in the pro-life field, how can you advocate amoral indifference about that? And even if you are right about your other point (Nothing you or I can do between now and the election will change the outcome. Nothing.), how can the position contrary to yours not be the most logical one, since it has at least a greater probability than 3rd party indifference of preventing the worst candidate to win?
But that’s crippled reasoning, dear Zippy, for crying out loud.
Perhaps by “crippling” you mean that it makes you feel powerless. I don’t doubt that that is true, and unpleasant. In fact it is precisely how I felt years ago when I began to realize that in fact I am powerless in the “just before the election” sense here. But what matters is whether the reasoning is sound and based on true facts, not whether it makes us feel powerless.
If we are powerless in the short term, we can be powerful in the long term. A small butterfly flapping its wings today can change the world twenty years from now. That is the kind of powerful we need to be, because it is the only kind of powerful we can be. Miracles are God’s business.
…but since even yourself agree that it can’t be done on time for this election, the question remains what is the best that can be done before it.
The best thing to be done before it is to think beyond it, since we can’t change it.
Tim J:
Did you read this exchange (source)?
In fairness to Tim, the point about strategy is distinct from the moral point. He is certainly right in characterizing my view of the moral point: if it is immoral (because of object, intent, or circumstances) then appeals to other considerations won’t make a difference.
At bottom (once again) there seems to be disagreement over the empirical facts about the nature of elections and voting. That disagreement skitters around in the discussion, but it really is the core issue, and it would be good if we could at least reach agreement that that is what we disagree about.
The practical results of a vote are part of the circumstances of the act of voting. Practical results can influence whether an act is right or wrong — objectively right or wrong. For instance, the practical prospect of success can influence whether a war is objectively justly to be waged. If an act is intrinsically evil — evil in its object — then no intent nor circumstance can make that act objectively good. If an act is evil in its intent, then no goodness of its object nor circumstance can make the act holistically objectively good, though the act can be said to be good under its aspect of object. If an act is good in its object and good in its intent, it can still be objectively evil due to the circumstances. Another example of this is having marital sexual intercourse during a time when there is serious risk of it inducing death. The object — be it sexual intercourse or marital sexual intercourse — is good in itself and the intent may be good in its unitive and procreative aspects but the circumstances would make that act imprudent, objectively imprudent and wrong, perhaps gravely so.
One may use the term “objectively” to refer to “as to its object”, but in common English parlance “objectively” means “as a matter of fact, really, independent of the mind’s perception or person’s preference”. In that sense, moral theology maintains all acts are either objectively moral or objectively immoral. There is no such thing as a moral sphere that is non-objective. If something is evil, it is objectively so. Relativism has no place in Catholicism.
Emailing or otherwise contacting a bishop is not the way authentic doctrine is made or doctrine is clarified authentically. The way it is authentically made or clarified is through a dubium submitted to the Holy See. The Holy See entertains these only from bishops. The magisterium can clarify doctrine in other ways, but pastoral responses whether in person, writing, or email never constitute authentic teaching.
I think we’re missing the point. According to the USCCB, “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.”
Zippy’s choice to abstain from voting is morally acceptable. Period. Mark’s choice to vote for a third party candidate is morally acceptable. Period.
Many of you don’t agree. Fine. Vote your well-formed conscience. However, we should quit criticizing legitimate positions.
Tim B,
The whole point of the controversy (at least in this thread) has been that SDG *does* accept that Mark and Zippy and anyone else has a perfect right to vote third party if they want and that this is an acceptable moral choice.
Mark and Zippy have been arguing that voting for John McCain is an objective evil… that there is no good excuse for anyone to vote for him.
Emailing or otherwise contacting a bishop is not the way authentic doctrine is made or doctrine is clarified authentically. The way it is authentically made or clarified is through a dubium submitted to the Holy See. The Holy See entertains these only from bishops. The magisterium can clarify doctrine in other ways, but pastoral responses whether in person, writing, or email never constitute authentic teaching.
Perhaps not, but when in doubt, I’ll prefer to have erred with the excuse that I got faulty advice from a Catholic Bishop, than to have erred by following the reasoning of a combox warrior.
Emailing or otherwise contacting a bishop is not the way authentic doctrine is made or doctrine is clarified authentically. The way it is authentically made or clarified is through a dubium submitted to the Holy See. The Holy See entertains these only from bishops. The magisterium can clarify doctrine in other ways, but pastoral responses whether in person, writing, or email never constitute authentic teaching.
Perhaps not, but when in doubt, I’ll prefer to have erred with the excuse that I got faulty advice from a Catholic Bishop, than to have erred by following the reasoning of a combox warrior.
Tim:
… that there is no good excuse for anyone to vote for him.
I would not put it that way, since it connotes more than incorrectness. I would say that there is no proportionate reason to vote for him.
Dave:
That is perfectly fine. I don’t want anyone to do anything on my personal authority. I don’t have any personal authority, nor do I aspire to any personal authority. I think my conclusion is true, that people ought to ultimately come to believe it because it is true, etc, but the authority here is truth, not me.
The assumption that Z, Mark, and L get wrong is that having McCain lose will cause the purification of the republican party – that they will somehow get more conservative and more pro-life by losing.
That is absolutely wrong. Losing only propels them to the center to fight for mush-minds because you need a majority to win. Medved actually makes sense to thie end below:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/10/22/the_consequences_of_defeat
So if McCain wins, we may bide some time and have a platform where its possible progress could be made. If mccain loses, then the party, now finding the pro-life movement against them, abandons that that stock as worthless and buys into another security.
Giving money away and telling people anything they do is OK seems to be working well for Obama. Perhaps the GOP will do more of that too.
Russ,
I don’t really think that McCain’s victory or defeat will do much as far as the general direction of the GOP. A defeat does make it slightly more likely that they’ll tack to the middle, but I don’t think they could tack much more to the middle than they’ve already done with McCain.
Next time, it’ll probably be Palin, Jindal, Huckabee, Pawlenty, etc….all solid conservatives.
The assumption that Z, Mark, and L get wrong is that having McCain lose will cause the purification of the republican party…
I’m not assuming that. My issue isn’t with the corruption of the Republican Party, it is with the corruption of pro-lifers, both as individuals and in the aggregate.
Dear Russ72
Thanks for the great Medved article.
“The assumption that Z, Mark, and L get wrong is that having McCain lose will cause the purification of the republican party – that they will somehow get more conservative and more pro-life by losing.
That is absolutely wrong. Losing only propels them to the center to fight for mush-minds because you need a majority to win.”
I think you are right, Russ, but it is hard to know. It is certainly possible that Z,M, and L are correct in their calculus, but that calculus is 100% prudential. Yet another reason I hold with SDG that for Catholics both voting for McCain and voting for a third-party candidate who is more in keeping with Catholic moral teaching than McCain are valid options. I would go further and argue that the same is true about a Catholic voting for Obama, although one would have to navigate through far more prudential traps to get there. Certainly Kmiec’s explanation is inadequate. But on the other hand if one believes both (i) McCain is being dishonest when he says he is anti-abortion and would appoint judges like Roberts, Scalia, and Alito and (ii) Obama is being dishonest about his extreme pro-abort views or would in any event execute policies that would diminish the incidence of abortion, then presumably one can vote for Obama in good conscience. While I think that these predicate assumptions are difficult to justify, they are at bottom entirely prudential. That said, I continue to believe that most Catholics who accept and rely on such assumptions to justify supporting Obama are being dishonest. They are in fact according insufficient weight to the moral gravity of abortion; that, at least, is my prudential assessment.
We’re making things complicated. Every time someone argues voting McCain is better for the pro-life movement, the other side points out it’s irrelevant. It’s irrelevant to vote for that reason if voting McCain is intrinsically wrong. Which is why Mark also has to stop arguing that voting third-party is better for the pro-life movement, as he argued just that in the first comment.
Am I the only one who finds Mark Shea’s claim to be The Last Honest Man annoying?
Mark doesn’t like the dissenters on the left, but he doesn’t like the dissenters on the right (people who disagree with JP II or Vatican II); he doesn’t like Obama, but he doesn’t like McCain either; he doesn’t like FOX, but he doesn’t like CNN; he doesn’t like Howard Dean, but he doesn’t like Karl Rove . . .
-J. Prot.
So what? I don’t like any of them either. Hey, there’s two honest men left!
Jeb:
I like a lot of these people just fine. I just don’t agree with them and (some of them) I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw. How that makes me the last honest man I have no idea. I thought it just made me somebody who has opinions about stuff. I would have thought that since you have appointed yourself the role of Ex-Catholic Who Hangs Around Catholics To Tell Them You Aren’t a Catholic Anymore Because You Know the Truth Now, that the role of Last Honest Man was pretty much taken in these parts.
I’ve often heard that companies who receive complaint assume that one vocal person represent 24 others who did not speak. Therefore, there are fifty last honest men.
😀