Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

[avatar382]

It has been fascinating reading the exchange between Clete and the rest of you. Make no mistake, at the core, this debate is about moral absolutism vs moral relativism.

Clete's argument, quite simply, is that one candidate is clearly and unambigously worse than the other (something that very few Christian conservatives dispute) , and given the choice between bad and worse, it makes sense to choose merely "bad." In reading Clete's posts and the pro-McCain Battle Royal posts, what strikes me is the pragmatism of the argument. No one really doubts that either McCain or Obama will get elected, and if you hold that McCain is even marginally better (and most Christian conservatives probably do), then a vote for him is a tiny step towards your interests. Clete is saying: "A tiny step forward is better than a huge leap back - Lets take every advantage, all the help we get."

The opposing view, eloquently put forth by Bob, places zero value on pragmatism, focusing 100% on principle. The argument is, equally simply, supporting a candidate that is less than 100% pro-life is absolutely morally wrong. John McCain is not 100% pro-life, hence supporting McCain is absoutely morally wrong. No matter how depraved his opponent may be, the difference in the "evil factor" between Obama and McCain is irrelevant, because supporting either candidate is equally morally wrong (absolutely wrong).

This sort of dilemma raises all sorts of interesting questions.

The first that jumps to my head is: Is it possible to make descisions 100% on principle 100% of the time?

For example, say that it was Obama running against Micheal Newdow, the atheist who fought in courts to have the Pledge of Allegance and US Motto modified. While most Christians would probably agree that Obama would be less bad than Newdow, the difference in "evil factor" would probably not be enough to give Obama very many Christian conservative votes. Is there a point, however, where that difference does become to great to ignore, great enough to force a compromise on one's principles? Consider the following hypothetical matchups, ignoring the obvious improbability: Obama vs. Putin? Obama vs. Stalin? Obama vs. Hitler? What about McCain vs. Hitler? (forgive me for bringing up the Hitler argument)

Has anyone in this life been forced to make a decision that was a compromise on one's principles, but necessary to prevent an evil so great as to make the compromise seem miniscule in comparison? I have. I'm sure everyone has. Such choices are a part of life. How do you reconcile them with an absolutist world view?

In the interests of full discolsure, I will say that I am an atheist who is voting for Obama.

 

[heir]

The democrats and the republicans are currently spending millions because they can see the difference and while you pontificate about how it ought to be, you become irrelevant.

In the mean time the rest of us will try to deal with reality

I sleep at night knowing that I will not cast a vote for men who will shed the innocent blood of the preborn. It's the least I can do for the babies.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It has been fascinating reading the exchange between Clete and the rest of you. Make no mistake, at the core, this debate is about moral absolutism vs moral relativism.

Clete's argument, quite simply, is that one candidate is clearly and unambigously worse than the other (something that very few Christian conservatives dispute) , and given the choice between bad and worse, it makes sense to choose merely "bad." In reading Clete's posts and the pro-McCain Battle Royal posts, what strikes me is the pragmatism of the argument. No one really doubts that either McCain or Obama will get elected, and if you hold that McCain is even marginally better (and most Christian conservatives probably do), then a vote for him is a tiny step towards your interests. Clete is saying: "A tiny step forward is better than a huge leap back - Lets take every advantage, all the help we get."

A vote for Obama is a huge leap away from our interests, a vote for McCain is a large step away from our interests.
Clete is asking if it is better to take a large step away from our interests to prevent taking a huge leap away from our interests.

The opposing view, eloquently put forth by Bob, places zero value on pragmatism, focusing 100% on principle. The argument is, equally simply, supporting a candidate that is less than 100% pro-life is absolutely morally wrong. John McCain is not 100% pro-life, hence supporting McCain is absoutely morally wrong. No matter how depraved his opponent may be, the difference in the "evil factor" between Obama and McCain is irrelevant, because supporting either candidate is equally morally wrong (absolutely wrong).

The opposing view says that it is just as wrong to take a large step away from our interests as it is wrong to take a huge leap away from our interests.

This sort of dilemma raises all sorts of interesting questions.

The first that jumps to my head is: Is it possible to make descisions 100% on principle 100% of the time?

For example, say that it was Obama running against Micheal Newdow, the atheist who fought in courts to have the Pledge of Allegance and US Motto modified. While most Christians would probably agree that Obama would be less bad than Newdow, the difference in "evil factor" would probably not be enough to give Obama very many Christian conservative votes. Is there a point, however, where that difference does become to great to ignore, great enough to force a compromise on one's principles? Consider the following hypothetical matchups, ignoring the obvious improbability: Obama vs. Putin? Obama vs. Stalin? Obama vs. Hitler? What about McCain vs. Hitler? (forgive me for bringing up the Hitler argument)

A lot of Christians do not see much difference between Obama and Hitler.

Has anyone in this life been forced to make a decision that was a compromise on one's principles, but necessary to prevent an evil so great as to make the compromise seem miniscule in comparison? I have. I'm sure everyone has. Such choices are a part of life. How do you reconcile them with an absolutist world view?

In the interests of full discolsure, I will say that I am an atheist who is voting for Obama.

As an atheist, your principles are naturally flexible, so compromise on them is not as catastrophic as a fundamental Christian compromising on his/her principles.

 

[Clete]

Do you understand that a “pro-life judge” cannot be confirmed because the democrats will block them?

How can you ignore that?

Is the point you are making here that you believe the Republicans would appoint genuinely pro-life judges if they were able to do so but don't because they know that no such judge would ever get confirmed because the Democrats have enough power to stop it?

I think that was your point.

If so, what evidence do you have that this is the case and in what way is electing McCain going to help that situation?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[drbrumley]

Do you understand that a “pro-life judge” cannot be confirmed because the democrats will block them?

How can you ignore that?

Your a joke!

As Anthony Gregory rightly points out:

Strict Constructionist Judges

Republicans don’t have any use for the Constitution, so it’s a wonder why anyone would assume they would appoint judges that do. Our Supreme Court has seven Republican appointees. The court has upheld campaign finance censorship and although, thankfully, it ruled against Bush’s destruction of habeas corpus rights of "enemy combatants," the Republican hero, Clarence Thomas, was very little help in that brief moment of sanity.

Republicans don’t want judges that rule in favor of federalism, constitutionalism, or common sense. If they believed in any of these principles, they wouldn’t pass such blatantly atrocious legislation and wage such horrendously unconstitutional wars. Republicans want judges that will approve of their despotism. Simple as that.​

 

[PKevman]

I sleep at night knowing that I will not cast a vote for men who will shed the innocent blood of the preborn. It's the least I can do for the babies.

Amen to that! :up:

God bless you JU

 

[PKevman]

To Chrysostom:

"I would never, and have never in all the years I've been there impose a litmus test on any nominee to the court" John Mccain 3rd 2008 presidential debate

This was when discussing having a pro-life litmus test for a supreme court judge. So I guess the argument that Republicans would nominate pro-life judges and the Dems would block it is destroyed by the clear light of the truth.

 

[chrysostom]

Is the point you are making here that you believe the Republicans would appoint genuinely pro-life judges if they were able to do so but don't because they know that no such judge would ever get confirmed because the Democrats have enough power to stop it?

I think that was your point.

If so, what evidence do you have that this is the case and in what way is electing McCain going to help that situation?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thank you for recognizing my point

Are you not aware that the democrats are currently blocking the nomination of all the judges nominated by Bush?

Do you think there will be no difference between the judges nominated by McCain or Obama?

Can you tell the difference between judges nominated by Bush and those nominated by Clinton?

 

[Clete]

Thank you for recognizing my point

Are you not aware that the democrats are currently blocking the nomination of all the judges nominated by Bush?

Do you think there will be no difference between the judges nominated by McCain or Obama?

Can you tell the difference between judges nominated by Bush and those nominated by Clinton?

Answering questions with questions isn't going to help.

What evidence do you have that Republicans would appoint genuinely pro-life judges to the bench if given the chance and how would electing McCain help the current situation regarding the Democrats seeing to it that no such judge makes it into the judiciary?

Please answer those questions specifically. Your argument rests on the answer to those two questions. If you can't answer them, you should avoid making the argument because, while people who already agree with you will like the argument, those of us who are intellectually honest are only interested in arguments that really work and that aren't merely superficial. That's not to say that your argument is necessarily superficial, I'm not even saying that I reject your argument, I'm just challenging you to flesh it out and establish the premise upon which it is based so that I can better evaluate its veracity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[chrysostom]

Answering questions with questions isn't going to help.

What evidence do you have that Republicans would appoint genuinely pro-life judges to the bench if given the chance and how would electing McCain help the current situation regarding the Democrats seeing to it that no such judge makes it into the judiciary?

Please answer those questions specifically. Your argument rests on the answer to those two questions. If you can't answer them, you should avoid making the argument because, while people who already agree with you will like the argument, those of us who are intellectually honest are only interested in arguments that really work and that aren't merely superficial. That's not to say that your argument is necessarily superficial, I'm not even saying that I reject your argument, I'm just challenging you to flesh it out and establish the premise upon which it is based so that I can better evaluate its veracity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I am not going to play word games with you

I have no “evidence” that republicans will appoint “genuinely pro-life judges” and I am not going to spoon-feed you what you should already know.

You know what the Democratic Party platform says
You know what goes on in the senate when a republican president nominates a judge for the federal courts

Obama will replace old liberal judges with younger liberal judges
With McCain, we at least have a chance to get maybe a moderate

I can tell the difference between Roberts and Ginsburg
I can tell the difference between Alito and Breyer

If you can’t, perhaps you have been resting too much

 

[mmstroud]

What evidence do you have that Republicans would appoint genuinely pro-life judges to the bench if given the chance and how would electing McCain help the current situation regarding the Democrats seeing to it that no such judge makes it into the judiciary?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Could I take a stab at answering them, at least for myself?

First, as far as evidence, we have only McCain's word that he would appoint justices in the manner of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts, who are, if not perfect pro-life proponents, are originalists with regard to the Constitution. While Republican elected officials have jumped off the deep end into the abyss of big government, and pragmatism with regards to virtue, the majority of the Republican party members aren't in agreement - and the congressional Republicans know it. The Republican leadership knows that the majority of self-identified Republicans don't favor a Supreme Court that acts as a legislative body, applying a 'loose' view of the Constitution.

The Democrats could very likely win their 'super-majority' and exercise their power to block McCain's nominees - however, shame on us if that happens. We the people are still the government. So we pick up the phone every day, we send an email every day, we write a letter every day. And we tell every like-minded person we come into contact with to do the same. These people, Republican and Democrat alike, have only one thing on their minds - reelection.

While it's true we have no guarantees with McCain, we can hold him to his word if we so choose. We have absolute guarantees with Obama. He has made lots of promises, and I believe he intends to keep them.

 

[avatar382]

A lot of Christians do not see much difference between Obama and Hitler.

Really? Is this just rhetoric, or are you seriously making the case that Obama and Hitler stand for the same thing?

As an atheist, your principles are naturally flexible, so compromise on them is not as catastrophic as a fundamental Christian compromising on his/her principles.

Yet, Christian or not, by necessity, as human beings living in this world we must compromise our principles all the time, lest we "win the battle, but lose the war."

Let me put it another way: What happens when your God's immutable moral laws conflict with each other?

Say You are in a situation where you must lie to save an innocent's life. Do you compromise your principle not to lie? If you have any shred of decency, of course you do. It's not even a hard decision to make.

That's a straightforward example, and the moral questions raised in this thread are far more subtle, but the central issue is the same.

Can we afford to uphold all our principles all the time, or must we prioritize them in some situations? From an absolutist worldview, how can absolute morals be prioritized, anyway?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Say You are in a situation where you must lie to save an innocent's life. Do you compromise your principle not to lie? If you have any shred of decency, of course you do. It's not even a hard decision to make.

Read the story of the Hebrew midwives. They lied to save the babies but they did not violate a moral principal. Any idea why? Because a lie is something you do when you are trying to slander another person or to avoid a just consequence for your own actions or to hide your guilt. Telling a "lie" to save an innocent is no lie at all from God's point of view. You attempt to create a conflict where none exists.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Say You are in a situation where you must lie to save an innocent's life. Do you compromise your principle not to lie? If you have any shred of decency, of course you do. It's not even a hard decision to make.

That's not a good example.

Lying is morally neutral, it can be both bad or good depending on the circumstance.

CabinetMaker provided and excellent example in his last post.

 

[JCWR]

Clete, you're demonstrating that you cannot see it, but the principle you espouse is based on fear (of the alternative), and it functions via moral relativism (I am justified supporting my murderer because otherwise their murderer who is worse will gain power).

Bob is correct on this and the other points he makes in his response.

If more Christians understood this then we would not be wrangling with peripheral matters like how to best maximize a vote based on the lesser of two evils.

The Christian is diluting the message of Scripture when they attempt to rationalize it away with concerns about who will act this way or not when both of the main candidates have clearly never denounced abortion explicitly. Others have and they are ignored because the believer has taken the bait of a relative morality contrary to Scripture.

Yes, it may mean your vote will not count in the final race because the other, lesser known candidate has no chance of being elected. Yet, that slim chance is a direct result of the believer who compromises the Word of God, as Bob notes in his full response. We have met the enemy...and he is us.

Amen, Bob!

 

[avatar382]

Read the story of the Hebrew midwives. They lied to save the babies but they did not violate a moral principal. Any idea why? Because a lie is something you do when you are trying to slander another person or to avoid a just consequence for your own actions or to hide your guilt. Telling a "lie" to save an innocent is no lie at all from God's point of view. You attempt to create a conflict where none exists.

That's not a good example.

Lying is morally neutral, it can be both bad or good depending on the circumstance.

CabinetMaker provided and excellent example in his last post.

From dictionary.com:

lie [lahy] verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Falsehood, lie, deceit, not telling the truth... Lets not play games with definitions -- the Hebrew midwives lied.

We all agree that what is interesting here is not whether or not a lie was told, rather whether that lie was morally justified, which you both agree depends on the situation. So, you both agree that lying is not absolutely morally wrong.

steal stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

Neither shall you steal.

Suppose you were in a situation in that you had to steal property (that is, take property without permission or legal right) in order to protect the life of an innocent.

Is taking property in this situation is not stealing?
Is stealing is morally neutral, and can be good or bad depending on the situation?
Is stealing is absolutely morally wrong, and this situation illustrates a case where immutable, absolute moral laws conflict?

Which is it?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

From dictionary.com:

Falsehood, lie, deceit, not telling the truth... Lets not play games with definitions -- the Hebrew midwives lied.

Well.... first off, I don't worship Merriam Webster, do you?

But even if I did why didn't you post the other definitions?

lie
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

A lie can be merely "an inaccurate or false statement." which can be a good thing. It was good for people to lie to the Nazi's about a Jewish person hiding in their attic. It was good when people lied about black slaves that were escaping slavery in the south.

False statements i.e., "lies" can be a righteous thing.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Suppose you were in a situation in that you had to steal property (that is, take property without permission or legal right) in order to protect the life of an innocent.

Is taking property in this situation is not stealing?
Is stealing is morally neutral, and can be good or bad depending on the situation?
Is stealing is absolutely morally wrong, and this situation illustrates a case where immutable, absolute moral laws conflict?

Which is it?

Your lying example didn' work out so good did it?
Lets see, stealing o save the life of an innocent...

Maybe you need to take some napkins from a resteraunt to stop the bleeding of a person that was hit by a car on the sidewalk out front. Is it stealing? Probably not since any reasonable person would offer what assistance they can to save a life.

How about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your children. Times are tough so this may happen. Is it stealing to take a loaf of bread from the grocery store to feed your family? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Why? Because you didn't ask. Had you asked, the manager of the store may have given it to you. Also, did you ask the local church for help? Did you check with the local missions? Did you talk to friends and family? Heck, did you check with the welfare office? You have a great many options available to you to feed your family so stealing should never need to be an option.

Do you have any examples of such a situation?

 

[nicholsmom]

The right thing to do is to put an end to Communism, period. In America and in China. And anywhere else it exists, like North Korea.

Let's do it. How many guns do you have? I have one. Voting sure isn't going to get it done - voting's been going on in our nation long enough to realize that we're not going to end Communism as simply as making our mark on a ballot. It's gonna take a great lot more work than that - unless Ronald Reagan can get back on the ballot & we can elect him a decent Congress. So... lots of work at the grassroots level for a couple or three decades might just get us a gov't we can work with.

One election? Not so much.

Do you honestly think things will remain the same? We've been going in a downward spiral since before any of us was born. And that is what will continue no matter which of the two major party candidates get the office of President.

Yep. I think that McCain will be mostly ineffective in the Oval Office, except perhaps with the military endeavors.

What I want is for people who promote abortion to get a bullet in the head. And, yes, I know Hitler was democratically elected. If you take a look at my record on here you'll notice I'm not a proponent of Democracy.

I tried to be careful to not lead you astray on this one, but Hitler was never elected - his party gained huge ground in a single election, but still they did not make up a majority. Hitler used this "mandate" to force the President to appoint to Hitler the chancellory & give him (Hitler) supreme power over many branches of their government. When the Nazi party later lost several of their rapidly-gained seats, Hitler & his supporters lost patience & just took over wholesale.

The point of the "democratically elected" posts in their congress was that the people were blind to the real impact of socialism - just as the citizens of the USA are today

P.S.
Democracy isn't even what we have in this country.

I never said it was.

And if McCain wins I get the same scenario.

Yes, except without the horror of socialism.

You're the one voting for a socialist.

:squint: You might want to do a bit of study on what socialism is.

Lighthouse knows all about Hitler's rise to power.

Aparantly not, though I did not intend to bait him, he did say that Hitler was democratically elected...

And you're a sad little hypocrite, whining about people comparing McCain to Hitler and then doing the same with Obama.

Where did I whine? I don't whine.
McCain has not campaigned for a brutal, socialist in Africa; McCain did not have his career launched by an unrepentant terrorist (who says he wishes he'd "done more" in his terrorism days - can we all say government overthrow?); McCain does not have a mentor like Jeremiah Wright who is a rabid racist; McCain's wife, though not particularly bright, is not ashamed of her country as is Michelle Obama.

Obama has violent, socialistic, elitist supporters - just like Hitler. Obama likes judges who need no precident to make law from the bench (all the easier for him to usher in his socialistic government).

In trying to save a couple dozen babies, you are damning not only millions more than are currently being slaughtered, but also choosing enslavement to an entire system of government that would force women to abort.

But hey, you can say "Whul... I didn't vote fer 'im" Congratulations. At least I'm doing what I can to keep him out of the Oval Office.

Tell me, if you could go back in time and, by your vote, ensure that Hitler's party never got a "mandate," and perhaps keep Hitler out of the chancellory, would you do it?

If Obama were Hitler, would you still vote third party?

 

[nicholsmom]

Maybe you need to take some napkins from a resteraunt to stop the bleeding of a person that was hit by a car on the sidewalk out front. Is it stealing? Probably not since any reasonable person would offer what assistance they can to save a life.

Save a life with napkins???
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: