We are all familiar with what seems like common sense rules of judgment: “If faced with outcomes that do not embrace the full good, choose the lesser (or least) evil” and “If faced with outcomes that lead to good ends, embrace the greater (or greatest) good among them.” It came up in an off-the-cuff remark recently that Pope Francis made in answer to a question from a journalist about the two major party candidates running for President of the United States. After pointing out how he sees both of them as holding stances that are “against life” (specifically mentioning support of abortion rights for the Democratic candidate and harsh treatment of immigrants for the Republican candidate), Pope Francis said that people have to discern and “choose the lesser evil.” He mentioned that this was common wisdom “in politics.”
I do not believe, however, that the advice to “choose the lesser evil” does full justice to what is at stake in moral decision-making. People can misread it as thinking we are to decide which of those issues—abortion or immigration—is the more important and therefore which stance is the lesser evil. That is not what the Pope is saying, and it is not so simple in a political situation. A candidate’s personally held belief in some areas does not necessarily translate directly into public policy, while he/she might have great control over implementing other personal beliefs. That is precisely why the commonsense moral norm “choose the lesser evil” arises. There generally is no “pure” candidate and public policy positions are complicated, therefore which person will do the least evil possible, reasonably foreseen, becomes a maxim in political philosophy. And, as a rule of thumb both “lesser evil” and “greater good” norms probably work fairly well in an everyday sense, but they can also obscure a deeper understanding of what it means to choose for the good in a way that embraces the reality of the whole situation, including foreseeable harms or evils. In Catholic moral wisdom we are asked to always choose a good, not an evil, not even a lesser evil, and the good we choose is not simply the “greater good” but what we discern to be the fullest expression of the “common good” for that situation.
Another caveat with these two simple norms is how they can be easily co-opted by utilitarian thinking, allowing us to take a very simplistic calculating approach to some moral issues. If putting this criminal to death will save a few future lives, then why not do it? Isn’t that the lesser evil or the greater good? If we have a choice of using an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 150,000 or more innocent civilians why not do that, if it ends a war that has taken hundreds of thousands of lives and maybe will take that or more in the future? Isn’t that the greater good? If I lie to my spouse in order to save the marriage, isn’t that the lesser evil or greater good, and so on? But Catholic moral wisdom does not let us get away with such simplistic, calculating, utilitarian thinking. The core moral principle of our Catholic moral tradition—protecting and honoring the fundamental dignity of every human being—means that we cannot deliberately sacrifice the one for the many, if the sacrifice destroys that dignity for that one. The corollary principle of the common good, which tries to ensure that everyone, the least included, has sufficient access to the basic goods of life needed to live a life of human dignity, means that we cannot simply calculate the good for the greatest number, if it involves leaving behind a segment of people with insufficient access to basic goods of health, food, water, education, transportation, access to voting, and so forth, if another segment has more than sufficient access. In a sense, it all gets summed up in the maxim “An intended good end never can justify the use of evil means.”
Think about all the discussion that has occurred, especially in the last 100 years or so, around what has been called the “principle of double effect.” The principle is premised precisely on the fact that one must always intend a good end, not an evil one, even though one can foresee unintended consequences that are not in themselves good; that one must choose a good or at least morally neutral means to that end; and that one can justify foreseeable, indirect, non-good ends if proportionately the good end reasonably sought outweighs the non-good that also is reasonably foreseen. This principle has been used among moral theologians, especially in end of life, biomedical, reproductive and other situations that have arisen in our contemporary world. A classic example is the sterilization that results from a hysterectomy. If the uterus is removed because it is cancerous and dangerous to the life and health of the mother, under the principle of double effect it would be allowed. If the uterus is healthy and removed to directly intend sterilization, the principle would condemn such an action. [As an aside, this principle, while it can help theologians analyze complex situations in the abstract and offer moral wisdom for certain complex situations we face, has, in my opinion, been overused and really does not capture how most decisions get made. But that is for another blog.] The point here is that this widely used principle captures the Catholic moral tradition’s wisdom that we can never directly choose or intend an evil so that some good may occur, no matter how “lesser” that evil is. Rather, we are choosing the good, given the totality of the situation, never using means that are evil in themselves, although recognizing that there can be harmful, unintended consequences as a result.
How does this focus on always choosing the fullest expression of the common good apply to the situation Pope Francis was commenting on? Clearly both major party candidates running for President of the United States hold morally flawed positions. If we vote for them in the hope that they will implement their beliefs in those flawed areas, we become complicit in that evil, as the bishops of the United States remind us in their most recent Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship document (#34): “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.” [Although it does not change the point being made in this blog, please see my blog on the use of the term ‘intrinsic evil’ and how that is a problematic term.] However, the bishops also remind us (#35): “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” In other words, there can be times—and in today’s political atmosphere it seems most elections fall into this category—where people can responsibly choose a candidate, all things considered, even when that candidate holds positions contrary to our moral teaching, even at times on very grave matters.
It would be much easier, from a moral decision-making perspective, if two candidates were to hold fairly similar positions on most matters, but on one or more grave matters, one candidate consistently holds a position that is in line with protecting the dignity of persons and the common good, while the other holds positions contrary to the fundamental dignity of persons and contrary to the common good. Then, even one key issue might decide one’s vote. But most often it is much more complicated than that, as in this year’s presidential election. How, then, does one make a good moral choice? Are we relegated to making a choice for the “lesser evil”? The answer, I believe, is rooted in the Catholic moral tradition’s understanding of a well-formed conscience and following that conscience when making one’s decision. As the Second Vatican Council states: “In the depths of one’s conscience, a human being detects a law which he/she does not impose upon themselves, but which holds one to obedience. Always summoning the person to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to one’s heart: do this, shun that. For a human being has in their heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of a human being; according to it the person will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a human being. There one is alone with God, whose voice echoes in one’s depths.” (Gaudium et Spes, #16). The Council makes clear that, though such conscience “frequently errs,” it needs to be acted on as the voice of God within one’s heart, and therefore clearly is always a decision for what is a positive good, not just a lesser evil.
The key is whether one has that well-formed conscience. To trust that one does, so that one is truly acting from the depth of one’s being open to God’s Spirit, a person needs to be open to learning, to becoming aware of nuances, of sifting through misleading news, and coming to a clear understanding not only of a candidate’s positions on issues but a realistic assessment of how those positions might lead to concrete public policies. Praying about how to vote, a person with a well-formed conscience seeks and respects the wisdom of others, especially people who are mature and wise, including people who might think differently on matters than oneself, learning how the fundamental dignity of every person and the common good being is being supported or undercut by their proposed policies. Continuing to pray, a person with a well-formed conscience weighs the options and makes a prudent decision, testing that decision against the peacefulness of their heart. Then, again always surrounded by prayer, one acts responsibly by voting that conscience-based decision. And, even after the vote, continuing prayerfully, a person with a well-formed conscience finds a way (letter, email, phone call, text, etc.) to challenge the candidate of his/her choice to reconsider the positions that express morally wrong outcomes. When one enters this process of formation of conscience and prayerfully comes to that moment of action (voting responsibly) one is then choosing the true common good, as one has come to discern it, for this moment. Not naïve about potential harms and evils, the decision is not of the lesser evil but of the peaceful sense that this is the good God intends for me to do in this situation. Humbly, it does not mean one is making the morally right decision. As mentioned above, conscience, even well-formed can “frequently err.” But a decision rooted in a mature, well-formed conscience is still sacred and must be followed.
How might all of this apply to this year’s presidential election? I would suggest that a conscience well-formed through its commitment to Catholic Social Teaching would clearly exclude at least one candidate from consideration for election—the Republican nominee. Why? Because his past actions and current rhetoric contradict the core principles of Catholic Social Teaching. The fundamental dignity of every human being? Not if one is an immigrant, even many who are here legally, pending their asylum cases. Not if one is an opponent of his, especially a woman, leading to all sorts of vile, demeaning remarks. The common good of the whole community, where the least among us has access to the basic goods and services necessary for one’s human dignity? Not through any just tax structure that would favor the least well off. Not through strengthening health care for all, only trying to destroy a health care plan that has given health insurance (and therefore health services) to millions of people who could not have afforded it prior. What about other principles that serve to enhance the common good such as solidarity and subsidiarity.? All that he does and says continually violates the principle of solidarity, trying to create greater divides among people rather than reduce such divides, deliberately lying almost every time he speaks so that there is a fog around what is actually true or not. And subsidiarity? Yes, he seems on the one hand to want states to have more power, but only if he consolidates federal power to himself. It really is not honoring subsidiarity to try to accumulate power in a way that allows one to ignore the Constitution and bypass Congress and the laws of the nation or state at one’s whim. That is why it is not a difficult discernment, for me at least, to say that I could not in good conscience vote for the Republican candidate for President, if I truly look at the totality of Catholic Social Teaching, and I do not think that is simply a subjective analysis of the situation.
But does that lead necessarily to voting for the Democratic candidate? No, I do not think so. I can see quite reasonably how some with a well-formed conscience might be led to not casting a ballot in this election, even taking into consideration that not voting might be the difference of one or other candidate winning. The Democratic candidate clearly holds positions contrary to our moral tradition, be they more open access to abortion, support of transgender surgery, in vitro fertilization, as well as some other positions, and I can understand how that might lead a person in good conscience to see them as flaws so deep that they cannot come to peace in prayer voting for her as a truly good act.
But I also think a person with a well-formed, mature conscience, although recognizing that several of the Democratic candidate’s positions are not acceptable, could come to a peaceful decision to vote for her, not because she stands for those positions but because they find in her the better chance for a fuller expression of the common good to be achieved, in spite of some those morally flawed positions. She seems to be more likely to put into practice greater solidarity to try to lessen the divide within this nation. She seems to be advocating a slightly fairer taxation system that puts less burden on the poor and marginally poor (for example, expanding the Early Childhood Tax Credit regardless if one pays taxes or not) and more on the wealthier (especially those with incomes significantly into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year), which honors the principle of preferential option for the poor, when it comes to allocating access to goods. Although missing the boat on abortion, at least from a Catholic moral perspective, her commitment to the fundamental dignity of those on the margin is clear. And, even on the issue of abortion, when comparing her stance with her opponent, due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade which puts the legality of abortion in the hands of the states, one recognizes that neither candidate is truly pro-life on this matter and that neither candidate in the next four years will reasonably have much influence on access to abortion, and so that issue might not be as germane as it might otherwise have been.
In the end, it is important that we allow our vote to be based on a process of prayerful discernment, ultimately rooted, not in the lesser evil but in a peaceful sense that this vote is what God is asking me to do here and now. I humbly realize that it might not be morally correct, but it is what I believe opens up the fullest possibility for the common good to thrive.