We present the position of Dr. Mariusz Blochowiak, president of the Ordo Medicus Foundation before the second circular of presidential elections in Poland
***
Is there a lesser evil and is it allowed to choose it?
I would like to rise a very crucial issue concerning the right reasoning regarding taking part in the second circular of presidential elections.
My observations show that a large number of people do not admit the existence of a lesser (and so larger) evil and believe that it is not morally possible to vote for any and thus little evil, that specified a choice will burden their conscience. This is incorrect reasoning and conduct that can have disastrous consequences for our homeland.
First, I will put forward rational arguments for the existence and moral work to choose little evil, and thus limit evil:
Evangelium vitae (Encyclical of St John Paul II):
"When it is not possible to reject or completely abolish the law allowing abortion, a parliamentarian whose individual absolute disapproval of abortion is clear and known to everyone may support, according to his conscience, proposals to limit the harmfulness of specified a law and to reduce its negative effects on public culture and morality. In doing so, he is not liable for unlawful cooperation in evil, but is doing the right thing, which is possible under the circumstances to limit evil and thus contribute to greater good."
Prof. Jacek Salij, tomista:
1. The reality itself demands that we separate between greater and lesser evil. The lesser evil is to bargain 2 PLN than to bargain 200 PLN, the lesser evil is to lie than murder.
2. In relation to the evil experienced – and thus the 1 that is not moral evil – we are always allowed to choose the lesser evil. Therefore, for example, erstwhile a fire breaks out, we call on firefighters, even though they will origin us rather quite a few harm and mess. For it is little evil than if the full home were to burn down. likewise – I will give a classical example from old textbooks – it is better to agree to cut off the leg than if gangrene were to origin my death. Yet no 1 can uncertainty that the amputation of the leg is besides a very large evil, but little than the failure of life.
3. As regards moral evil, however, there is simply a regulation that a lesser evil must never be done. due to the fact that we believe that this planet is God, and so there cannot be a situation in which we would be condemned to gotta negociate with evil. However, whenever individual tries to defend himself against any misfortune by doing evil, reasoning that he chooses little evil, he always turns out to have chosen greater evil. Yes, there are times erstwhile a individual does not see any another way of saving himself than by committing 1 or another sin. But in specified situations there is always a 3rd way – possibly the most difficult, sometimes demanding of martyrdom – to save the soul and not exposure it to sin. An exemplary example of specified an attitude is, for example, the Biblical Susan, who preferred to accept the unjust reproach and punishment of death, alternatively than offend God with sin, even though it would save her life and respect in men.
4. In 1 case only we are allowed to choose sin as a lesser evil: erstwhile it comes to sin done not by me, but by individual determined to do evil, and it is only up to me that he will do greater or lesser evil. erstwhile a bandit puts me before an alternative: money or life, of course, I am allowed to behave in specified a way that he commits robbery alternatively than murder.
flea24
From the above, but besides from sound thinking, there is little evil, and from a moral point of view, evil must be limited. For example, as above, a Catholic MP can and should even vote for an abortion bill if this 1 more protects life than the erstwhile one.
The same is actual of elections. We should be guided by rational thinking, not emotions, and even against feelings of dislike or regret (to a organization or its candidate) to make decisions that possibly have a better chance of reducing evil, i.e. to choose evil little (or greater good).
Is the boycott of election morally neutral?
I believe that, in view of the well-being of our nation and the state, both Sławomir Mentzen and Grzegorz Braun and another opinionative individuals should encourage their constituents to cast votes for little evil, that is, for a candidate who, after a cold analysis, gives better chances to do little evil (or more good). From a rational point of view, recommending not to go to elections only makes sense and it is right if the candidates were the same, whether they had the same views and thus the chance to do the same evil/good. Otherwise, from a moral and rational point of view, the elections should be held.
The deficiency of participation in elections is not morally neutral (except in the case mentioned above, the identity of candidates), but it has consequences. To illustrate this, imagine that if 5 people pull a line on 1 side and 4 people on the other, another individual can balance their strength, and the next 1 will lead to the triumph of this page, which at the beginning of the competition had only 4 players.
This simple example shows that neglecting 2 people (not joining the fight) will consequence in a completely different outcome. It is clear that these 2 passive individuals supported the stronger (5 people), and so the claim that they did not support anyone is simply a mistake. Consequently, the deficiency of participation in elections can be a choice of evil as much as possible, not less, but more. By neglect.
Comparison of candidates with II tour
The next point is to find which candidate is more promising. In order not to prolong this argument, let us focus on 1 fundamental difference between the 2 candidates, namely the approach to killing unborn children, although there are more differences. This problem appears to be marginalised in the debate before the 2nd round, while it should be first at least for Catholics.
Let us briefly quote the candidates themselves for the office of President.
Karol Nawrocki:
‘— I wouldn't sign the abortion compromise bill. As future president, I could not let abortions to be subjected to children with Down syndrome."
Karol Nawrocki:
“I am Catholic. I'm a Christian. I am a associate of the Catholic Church. I am for life from conception to natural death, that is natural to me.”
Rafał Trzaskowski:
"Of course, if I become president, I will sign a law liberalising anti-abortion law. And if necessary, I will take this initiative myself, due to the fact that it is for a female to decide her life and her health"
Rafał Trzaskowski:
"I undertake to legislate liberalizing this medieval abortion law. I will push my colleagues to make this change a fact"
I realize these are declarations, but that's all we have. To whom it is worth giving chance and increase probability To last helpless and innocent?
Will the innocent and susceptible unborn children for the next 5 years be indifferent to whether Catholics (and another people) will go to elections, even though Rafał Trzaskowski wants to kill them, and Nawrocki declares that he is an opponent of abortion and is even more restrictive than the abortion compromise that allowed the killing of sick children?
What should erstwhile candidates do?
If Sławomir Mentzen and Grzegorz Braun and another opinion-makers talk critically or commendably about circumstantial people by naming them by name, why does the subject of names in the second circular of elections (who better to vote on) become a taboo topic? What is the rational (and Catholic) justification? This is inconsistent. any people and the environment finish their analysis by recommending not to vote for Rafał Trzaskowski, but do not (rightly) undertake the subject of voting for a counter-candidate and participating in elections, which, as I explained, is not morally neutral.
It is clear that the vote of voters Grzegorz Braun or Sławomir Mentzen can not be "transferred" to another candidate, but it is possible and essential to carry out a cool and "scientific" analysis of both candidates and indicate publically what results from this analysis, that is to say who the erstwhile candidate will vote as a lesser evil (greater good). Why can't a politician uncover the result of specified an analysis by giving a circumstantial name? After all, giving the name does not oblige any voter to vote according to the view of the erstwhile presidential candidate, and can convince those who are undecided or who think that they are not allowed to vote for any little evil or even none.
Such people do not realize that no candidate is perfect, and so in I circular they chose (the smallest) evil, due to the fact that no angel from heaven ran for president guaranteeing for the next 5 years only good decisions. specified misconceptions and reasoning must be straightened out, and only the authority of the erstwhile candidate can work here.
Solomon’s Wisdom in the Second Time
It is worth it, and it is essential that the candidates who have fallen off ask questions to candidates fighting in the second circular of elections. However, it cannot be expected that they will sign up to all the demands, due to the fact that they represent different perfect environments. The indication of a lesser evil (or greater good) consists in assigning adequate importance to the views of candidates and consequently in favour of a better one.
He realizes that it may not be politically safe for erstwhile candidates to indicate who he will vote for, due to the fact that the honor of the voters of Sławomir Mentzen or Grzegorz Braun will take it negatively, but from the moral and good side of our nation it is right. Sometimes you gotta sacrifice yourself, as a good parent did at the trial before King Solomon.
Two women came before his throne. Both brought their children, who were born at the same time. 1 was dead due to the fact that it died last night. Both women claimed that the surviving kid was them and accused each another of stealing. Then the king said,
«Bring me the sword!» shortly the sword was brought to the king. Then the king ordered: «Cut this surviving kid into 2 and give half of 1 and half of the other!» Then a female whose boy was alive took pity on her boy and cried out: «My Lord! Let them give her a kid alive, so that you do not kill him!» She said: “Let it be neither mine nor yours! Cut it!» The king spoke and said, «Give this surviving kid to her and do not kill her! She is his mother». erstwhile the king’s judgement was learned by all Israel, he worshiped the king due to the fact that he saw that he was endowed with God’s wisdom for judgment. (1 Kings 3:24-28)
Today, the wisdom of the Salomon is that there should be candidates and another opinion-makers able to entrust our homeland to the care of the evil, but nevertheless a better parent than the 1 who wants to cut it, or kill it.
“Nawrocki-Trzaskowski 1 Evil”?
Furthermore, it is worth noting what is commonly raised, that the slogan "PiS-PO 1 evil" is simply a simplification. There is simply a difference in issues specified as the cultural revolution or the approach to abortion, and these are very crucial issues at least for the Catholic. This slogan is so not true.
Furthermore, the view of the “PiS-PO 1 evil” is not the same as Nawrocki-Trzaskowski, due to the fact that the president can (if he wishes) be independent of the organization and there is simply a non-zero chance that it will be so on at least any issues. Thus, the “PiS-PO 1 evil” for presidential candidates is another simplification, which is not true.
So if there is chancethat 1 candidate will be better than another, it is from a moral and rational point of view that it is essential to vote for specified a candidate, in order to reduce (future) evil to the top degree possible for the voter. The claim that both candidates are the same is manifestly incorrect. And if they're different, that means 1 can be better than the other, that they can be ranked in the hierarchy of possible evil or good. Logic.
My choice.
In the 2nd circular I will vote for Nawrocki due to the fact that I think it is greater chanceThat he would be a better president than Trzaskowski. I didn't vote for any of them in the first place.
Unfortunately, any of the countrymen approach the elections emotionally and in a simpler way alternatively than cold, "scientificly" and rationally analyse and "weight" which candidate is better and vote even against his feelings of dislike or regret for a organization or person.
Dr Mariusz Blochowiak
President of the Ordo Medicus Foundation
Source: ordomedicus.org
Statement by the Fr Piotr Skarga Christian Culture Association on the election of the president of the Republic of Poland
Filip Obara: Is it wise to vote against Trzaskowski?
