Hypothetical Situation

[Nihil Obstat]

Preface:
This thread is meant to spark debate and discussion, and the situation presented in no way reflects my personal opinions on either side of the issue.

Ok, purely hypothetical situation. Let's pretend that you, as a confidently orthodox Catholic, had the opportunity to rig the next election? Let's say there's a clear choice between a more Catholic friendly candidate, and a run of the mill not particularly good candidate. Do you do it? Is it justified?

If you answer no to this, then answer this:

Change of situation: the bad candidate is not a really really bad candidate. He's going to outlaw religion in place of a state sanctioned Church, abortions are going to increase at least 300%, all laws regarding euthanasia will be struck down, and it's reasonable to expect that at least one unjust war will be started. You know for a fact that this will happen. The other candidate is the perfect Catholic candidate.
Now do you rig the election? Is it justified?




Please discuss the questions.


EDIT for clarification:
Your decision is the ONLY one that matters after you've rigged it.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[CatherineM]

Elections have been tampered with since the first votes were cast on pot shards. Who gets to vote, on what, has also been arbitrarily decided over the centuries. 500 years ago, if you were born into the right family, you might have been allowed to decide all these things without a vote.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1759030' date='Jan 22 2009, 11:29 PM']Elections have been tampered with since the first votes were cast on pot shards. Who gets to vote, on what, has also been arbitrarily decided over the centuries. 500 years ago, if you were born into the right family, you might have been allowed to decide all these things without a vote.[/quote]
You didn't answer.
Effectively, we're saying you have the one and only vote.

[shadowstich]

well my thought is, if the one is going to do more good for everyone, then they will be voted in anyways. or if you know they will actually be better for all people, then its ok to rig an election

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='shadowstich' post='1759050' date='Jan 23 2009, 12:02 AM']well my thought is, if the one is going to do more good for everyone, then they will be voted in anyways. or if you know they will actually be better for all people, then its ok to rig an election[/quote]
Rats. Further clarification needed: the bad one will win if you don't rig it.

[shadowstich]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1759052' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:04 AM']Rats. Further clarification needed: the bad one will win if you don't rig it.[/quote]
what would the bad one do?
and if they are so bad, why are they voted in

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='shadowstich' post='1759053' date='Jan 23 2009, 12:07 AM']what would the bad one do?
and if they are so bad, why are they voted in[/quote]
It's weirdly hypothetical. I made it up, so I get to dictate terms.

I talked about the bad one in the first post.

[shadowstich]

wow i someghow missed that part, and i read it like 3 times

then yes rig away

[philothea]

[quote name='shadowstich' post='1759059' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:09 AM']wow i someghow missed that part, and i read it like 3 times

then yes rig away[/quote]


Agreed.

I'm very uncomfortable with any kind of law or rule breaking, but to directly save someone's life? Or, in this case, a whole lotta people's lives [i]and[/i] preserve Catholicism in the nation? [i]So[/i] rigging that baby.

Assuming I don't have to kill anybody.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this sounds eerily similar to a poll or something i would create...

[Aloysius]

the ends do not justify the means, ever. if rigging an election is wrong, then it's wrong no matter what the ends would be. the rigging as I understand it would necessarily involve dishonesty on your part; you'd be lying about how many people had voted for this or that candidate somehow, and lying is always wrong (even if it's lying to save the world)... it would be more justified in my opinion, believe it or not, to violently overthrow the immoral government than to keep it from coming to power through dishonesty.

now, there are always possible situations in which some action that is less than democratic might be justified to keep the bad guy from winning.

[kafka]

We are dealing here with the comission of a moral act. All moral acts fall under the three font of morality, namely:

1. intention: following all the way through to the circumstance the third font below
2. the act in itself: apart from intention and circumstance) either an act of comission or omission
3. circumstance: everything else which pertains to the overall act usually the good and bad consequences.

If either of the three fonts are bad then the overall act is immoral.

Now, the intention is good. One wants to prevent disorder and many sins from being comitted. So the first font is good.

the act in itself is bad. I think it would be considered a comission of falsification or corruption or perhaps it could be called forgery, for how else could one change the results of an election? One would have to tamper with many peoples votes in fact enough to significantly change the outcame of an entire nation worth of voting (which is very hypothetical). Maybe a better way to put it is that in the U.S. one would have to tamper with the outcome of certain crucial states or perhaps crucial counties in crucial states to

Now the the good consequences outweigh the bad, yet the overall act is already immoral under the second font. So in other a bad act in itself cannot justify a good outcome or even a good intention, like many people like to simplify it, the ends do not justify the means.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this is why i've always said that sometimes the end does justify the means.
if violent upheaval isn't possible, and lying is your only option, what are ya gonna do.
the end doesn't always justify the means. it can be a difficult subject to answer as to when, it involves good judgment. million dead v. a little indignant deception. i say, God works on common sense.

[kafka]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1759080' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:42 AM']this is why i've always said that sometimes the end does justify the means.
if violent upheaval isn't possible, and lying is your only option, what are ya gonna do.
the end doesn't always justify the means. it can be a difficult subject to answer as to when, it involves good judgment. million dead v. a little indignant deception. i say, God works on common sense.[/quote]
People should place their trust in God's will and providence and grace, and not act immorally to overcome evil.

This very hypothetical. It wont ever happen. Its a moral exercise.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the moral exercise thing, i think that's why folks are willing to say "let em all die". they stick their heads into this cloud of theory and forget the common sense.
i'm sure most people would in that situation, engage in deception, if they could get away with it, good christian people, even many who say they wouldn't. the reason, i'd argue, is cause they know it's the right thing to do. i know what the populace would do isn't indicative of truth, but in this case i think it does. not that my observation answers a whole lot given who knows when the populace is right or not. but

i do recognize that you were saying 'it's a moral exercise' just to point out that God would never put us in that situation, and he'd do something else to stop it etc, but that as a scenario that's possible, it's worth entertaining and that we should 'do the right thing' in that scenario.
if God hasn't directly intervened to fix the situation, though, we have to fix it ourself, we are God's instruments, after all, that's how he's arguably doing it.

just a fundamental, normative, disagreement, i guess.

[kafka]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1759121' date='Jan 23 2009, 02:14 AM']the moral exercise thing, i think that's why folks are willing to say "let em all die". they stick their heads into this cloud of theory and forget the common sense.
i'm sure most people would in that situation, engage in deception, if they could get away with it, good christian people, even many who say they wouldn't. the reason, i'd argue, is cause they know it's the right thing to do. i know what the populace would do isn't indicative of truth, but in this case i think it does. not that my observation answers a whole lot given who knows when the populace is right or not. but

i do recognize that you were saying 'it's a moral exercise' just to point out that God would never put us in that situation, and he'd do something else to stop it etc, but that as a scenario that's possible, it's worth entertaining and that we should 'do the right thing' in that scenario.
if God hasn't directly intervened to fix the situation, though, we have to fix it ourself, we are God's instruments, after all, that's how he's arguably doing it.

just a fundamental, normative, disagreement, i guess.[/quote]
its a disagreement based on moral relativism, e.g. most people, even good Christians would do this in a this given situation (even though what they are doing is wrong), therefore it is the right thing to do. Even if you argue that it is common sense, common sense does not override moral principle since men's common sense may be clouded by concupiscence and the influence of sinful society and go against the moral law written in intellect and free will. There are places in the world where people think it is common sense to commit abortion to prevent overpopulation.

No, God promulgated the moral law by creating intellect and free will. Nothing can override this.

I really see no good point in your argument, I dont even sympathize with it.

[Aloysius]

the point is that if you let the ends determine what your means should be, you can justify a whole lot of stuff that is bad AND you have no idea what the ends will really be. this hypothetical says we know for sure what will happen if we do this or that thing... but in real life, we never know.

there are common sense approaches to justifying various acts by actually finding something in the action itself which makes the action not immoral, ie by altering the action rather than justifying the action by the ends you assume will come of it.

if one believes in final justice, one understands that one's actions are not to be done because of what they will accomplish one way or the other, but because they are right or wrong in and of themselves. if a mad man had a bomb that could destroy the whole earth and he demanded of you that you kill an innocent person in cold blood or else he will press the button and set off the bomb, the Christian knows that he cannot save the world and lose his soul; he must let the world be completely destroyed rather than do an act which is so immoral. Why? Because he has faith in the final judgement, the final justice; that all things come out right in the end.

where do you draw the line? you seem to justify lying to save millions of lives, would you justify killing innocents who had nothing to do with anything to save millions of lives? it's a damnable philosophy of life which is practically (even if not theoretically) a denial of final Divine justice.

anyway, the more detailed explanation of why dishonesty here is wrong is that human beings cannot be used as means to an end. in misrepresenting the votes of these people, you are using them as tools and denying their inherent dignity as persons. you can honorably meet them on a battlefield to stop them from doing evil, but you cannot use them as tools; people are ends in and of themselves and deserve to be treated as such and no one has the right to use them by lying about their vote.

manipulating people in this way is wrong. morally, you must confront them and treat them with the dignity they deserve; because of their dignity and human freedom, they have the right to come out in support of evil and if/when they do, you do not manipulate and lie to stop them from succeeding, you honorably meet and oppose them face to face. to do anything less is cowardly regardless of the results you get.

[Jesus_lol]

the road to hell is paved with good intentions. thats all i got on these twisted hypothetical situations.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1759158' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:49 AM']the road to hell is paved with good intentions. thats all i got on these twisted hypothetical situations.[/quote]
I'm really mean when it comes to unlikely hypothetical situations.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i mean, as a technical point, i'm not sure the means is even evil to begin with. normally it would be, but if God desires it to be done, i doubt it's wrong to begin with.
you're not selling your soul to save the world, so that's not a problem. if anything, you'd be selling your soul, in letting the world die, in an attempt, even if genuine, at doing the right thing. i'm reminded of the beginning of matthew when the pharasees were dissing jesus for his miracles on the sabbath etc, and he pointed out how they nullify the world of God for the sake of their traditions. the tradition here being 'the end enver justifies the means' etc line of thinking. i'm sure some of those pharisees were genuine, too.

asking the question rhetorically 'if it's okay here, where does it end?' isn't answering the question. it's not saying why it's wrong to 'justif the means sometimes'. life doesn't have to have clear answers for everything, clear answers in principle is all that matters.
see, i don't think arguing that the end sometimes justifies the means is even relativisic. the principles are clear, the factors are clear, applying them might not be. there's surely a right or wrong answer, even if humans make the wrong choice. that's how many things are, even in catholic theology.
it's clear here, it might not be clear elsewhere as Al said, i recognize. if there's less certainty in another problem, of the result, you have to consider that too. it's all part of the equation. mistakes will be made, but if good judgment is used, more often than not, you'll be fine.

i don't see how there's no sympathy to my argument, considering i'd be saving millions of people? how heartless are you people, or anyone who'd say that? there should at least sympathy to the desire to save millions of lives.....
i mean, i think what all you guys are saying is outrageous and ludcris, really,insane, idiotic etc. but, i do respect it cause of your respect for truth.
i recognize i could, theoretically be wrong, too.
but i'm pretty sure if anyone would be sinning in this hypothetical, it's the person who wouldn't save millions of people. doing the pharisee thing. it's mind boggling there's pepole so cold and rigid as to let everyone die...

Edited January 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c