My buddy Michael Foster and myself have been having a discussion on Facebook about the election and moral responsibility. Here’s how it’s gone:
Mike: I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. The child-murder supporting socialist or the old war-monger with his ill-equipped hockey mom? No, no.
Me: perhaps voting based off highest level of efficacy in achieving the highest amounts of your ideals?
Mike: Matt, isn’t that same thing as lesser of two evils but reversed.
Me: I can completely understand having a moral issue SUPPORTING either candidate. I am not convinced the same issue exists in VOTING for a candidate. In the case we are faced with another moral dilemma that our postmodern hearts have grown hard to: civic responsibility. We all comprise a Representative Democracy, which in terms of being “subject to one’s authorities”, might just mean that we are subject first and foremost to the constitution.
So how can we think that the blatant evil policies of both candidates somehow abdicates us from the moral responsibility of participating in the political process? Which has led me to ask the question, “Of the policies that I am morally convinced are good for people, which candidate can most effectively accomplish them?”
Does this leave the blood of innocent children, either here or in Iraq, on my hands? I am an American, their blood is already there.
Care to join the discussion?