Shoving Grandma and Politics

Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, raised some very interesting thoughts on his weekly radio program this past Sunday, November 11th. And honestly, I have changed my view on the upcoming election because of them. There has been quite a lot of discussion in evangelical circles regarding the upcoming presidential election. The discussion has focused on the hypothetical scenario of what should evangelicals do if both candidates are pro-abortion. How should we vote? Dr. Dobson has taken a lot of flack for his position and comments he made during a recent interview where he said he would not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and he stands by that. The media has misrepresented him even to the point of claiming that Dr. Dobson wants to start a third party, which is not the case. At first, I applauded Dr. Dobson and others like him for their convictions and agreed with them, but on second thought I think their convictions aren't well thought out. Let me explain. Is it wise to make our decisions with no regard for the outcome? Christ would argue that we should "count the cost" Dr. Dobson could keep his word and actually cause more deaths and I don't think that is a viable option.

Is it ever right to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? And if I'm pro-life, how could I vote for someone who is pro-abortion? (which could be the dilemma pro-lifers face if Rudy Giuliani gets the Republican nomination.) Some would argue that it is a compromise to our position if we do, but is it? Well, that depends. Is it wrong to shove Grandma? Yes and no, it depends on the situation. If I shove Grandma because I'm mad at her, yes that is clearly wrong. But, if I shove her out of the way of a speeding car that's an entirely different thing. It is the motive, not the act, that determines the morality of an act. Our obligation is to cast our vote in a way that does the greatest good possible given the circumstances we are facing. Or to put it another way; we try to do the moral thing. So we see that it is not necessarily what we do, but why. Then we must also ask; what is the standard by which we judge.

Now some might claim this is Situational Ethics, but it is not, nor is it Relativism (moral subjectivism). Situational Ethics as a philosophy is actually objective in nature because it grounds itself outside itself in love, but I'm not grounding my position in love or myself. My position is moral objectivitism because it is dependent on the details of the objective situation. It's truthfulness is not based on me (the subject), but on those things outside myself (the object). Because all truth claims depend on the circumstances and circumstances are always relevant questions to whether an act is moral; this is the correspondence theory of truth. True truth is the way things really are.

So here is the way I see it. If we are placed in this situation between two pro-abortion candidates and our objective is to save as many lives as we can given the circumstances we face, then which candidate will do that best? Clearly the Republican.