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.