February 27, 2016

Why #NeverTrump Is The Only Moral Position

One of the arguments that Republicans are having among ourselves is what do we do if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee in November? Some argue that they must support the party's nominee, but others (commentator Erick Erickson, for example), take the position that they cannot vote for Trump. Taking the latter position leads those who say vote for the nominee to make the accusation that failure to vote for Trump-the-nominee constitutes making a positive choice in favor of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, and therefore moral responsibility for the negative impact of the election of one of those hard-left candidates. I would argue that those who make such arguments are wrong not merely as to the question of intent, but also as to the moral implications of that choice.

It is a fundamental tenet of traditional Christian moral teaching that one may not choose to commit an objectively immoral (malum in se) act. If an act is gravely and objectively morally evil, one cannot do it, even if the result of doing it might be good or better than the alternative. For example, it is not permissible to kill a wealthy man simply because doing so will result in an immediate bequest to a local charity which will allow it to remain open and continue to do good works for thousands of needy people. Similarly, one may not rob a bank or sexually abuse a child because of a hostage taker has threatened to kill an innocent person if you do not. The Christian -- indeed, any person is morally obligated not to choose to do evil and to reject the utilitarian notion that choosing objective evil is morally acceptable if the ultimate outcome is a subjectively (or even objectively) greater good.

Which leads us to the electoral question. When approaching the ballot box, one has the obligation to vote in a manner that is objectively moral. In most elections, this is an easy task, for there is usually at least one non-corrupt candidate whose positions and promises are, if not perfect, within the realm of moral acceptability. If there is more than one acceptable candidate, it is acceptable to vote for any one of them -- though the more virtuous act is to vote for the greater good. If there is not such a candidate, it is the obligation of a moral person to abstain from voting for any candidate a vote for the lesser evil is still a choice to do evil, and the choice to do evil is always objectively wrong. The utilitarian argument that one should choose the lesser evil must be rejected.

Which leads us to the potential situation facing voters in November of 2016. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democrat candidate, is personally corrupt and is running on a platform that highlights her support for abortion and laws that would deeply infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and the property rights of Americans. Her Democrat opponent, Bernie Sanders, is a socialist whose program is steeped in Marxist ideology and will require confiscatory levels of taxation that will reduce most Americans to the position of being wards of the state rather than free and self-sufficient citizens, not to mention the fact that he is every bit as hostile to constitutional liberties as his Democrat rival. Ordinarily, this would make a vote for the Republican alternative the only good moral choice except for the fact that Donald Trump may be that nominee.

Why can't a Christian --- or any individual with a functioning moral compass vote for Donald Trump? That's easy Trump combines the hostility to freedom displayed by both Democrats with Hillary's personal corruption and Bernie's totalitarian tendencies. Add to that a thin-skin and personal vindictiveness that rivals the character flaws of Barack Obama and you have a perfect storm of political evil. Many commentators not just on the Left, but also on the Right have called Trump a fascist. And even if most scholars of fascism are unwilling to go quite so far as labeling him a fascist, they so note his the we and rhetoric do sound many themes that have been a part of fascist rhetoric and platforms from the beginning of that malignant movement. At a bare minimum, it is fair to label Trump a proto-fascist. On that basis alone, it is morally unacceptable to vote for him, because the racism, support for violence against opponents, and efforts to intimidate and control the press are objective evils which we cannot legitimately support.

So what is a voter with a right conscience to do? Civic participation and voting in elections are generally seen as virtuous things, but choosing to vote for evil is never an acceptable alternative. That is true even when one might vote for what one views as the lesser of two evils, for that still constitutes the material cooperation in evil. (Note, please, that this differs from voting for a candidate whose platform is not 100% in line with ones principles in that case one is voting for a good but flawed candidate because a perfect one does not exist.) One is compelled to abstain from voting for either candidate in such an instance whether by leaving that race blank on the ballot or by voting for a third-party or independent candidate. While the outcome will still advance evil, one's refusal to give active assent by giving a vote to an evil candidate absolves one of that evil and does not constitute a so not omission. It is, in fact, the only morally acceptable choice for one not wedded morally relativistic utilitarianism.

|| Greg, 10:07 PM || Permalink || Comments (5) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Why #NeverTrump Is The Only Moral Position

TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Why #NeverTrump Is The Only Moral Position'.

Comments on Why #NeverTrump Is The Only Moral Position

This paragraph presents clear idea in favor of the new people of blogging, that actually how to do running a blog.

|| Posted by .?沢の,,模~OZ-"YTs(f,f?,, 80DB BK) f<f^f ??-T"-Tf, March 23, 2016 04:05 AM ||

The fruit extract also initiates fat-burning which helps improve your metabolism.

|| Posted by Shantae, November 6, 2016 03:14 AM ||

This infusion comes comprises Hydroxycitric acid, which
comes from the skin of the fruit.

|| Posted by Leora, November 6, 2016 03:49 AM ||

Reasons for the inconsistent results might be duration of treatment, the
dose, or formulation of Garcinia extract that was used.

|| Posted by Bebe, November 6, 2016 04:23 AM ||

Remember that's milligrams of HCA (Hydroxycitric Acid), not just
milligrams of Garcinia Cambogia Extract.

|| Posted by Alberto, November 8, 2016 08:33 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?




Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Abortion (posts: 1)
Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5265)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)


February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure


About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site

Support This Site

Recent Entries

Resolution Packet For GOP Precinct Conventions
Why #NeverTrump Is The Only Moral Position
Republican Primary Endorsements -- 2016
A Proposed Shorter RPT Platform
Pro-Lifers To Release Documents Related To Purchase Of Fetal Tissue By Texas Public Universities!
Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs