In this episode we are going to answer the question, "Is it morally right to vote for the lesser of two evils?
Before answering this question, I want to be clear that as Christians we are called to be moral absolutists. A moral absolutists is someone who morality is based upon the universal precepts and principles of Scripture (i.e., divine truth).
The lesser of two evils principle states that when faced with selecting from two immoral positions, the least immoral should be chosen. The principle is derived from moral relativism. In the modern era, the lesser of two evils policy was part of United States’ Foreign Policy Strategy (i.e., the Kirkpatrick Doctrine) to justify supporting Communist Joseph Stalin during World War II. The belief was that Stalin was the lesser of two evils when compared to Hitler.
It was adopted by leftists who disapproved of the government’s support for the Vietnam War. Huffington Post writer, Stanford Jay Rosen stated, “Beginning with the 1968 presidential election, I often have heard from liberals that they could not vote for the lesser of two evils. Some said they would not vote; some said they would vote for a third party candidate.”
This principle has become part of the United States political vocabulary. Every election, voters who believe they are forced to vote for a candidate who is less evil than the other candidate. Further, the position is justified by believing that choosing the lesser evil is better than not voting at all or voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning, which will result in the greater of two evils winning.
The first problem with this principle is that it is focused on the consequence of the election. Moral absolutists are non-consequentialist. That is we need to make a decision based upon Scripture, not on the consequences. Thus, to subscribe to a principle that denies one’s entire moral position is fatal to one’s Biblical ethics.
The second problem with this principle is that is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A false dilemma presents two positions as the only possible options when there are more options. This dilemma is false because there are always more than two options. One, the Christian is not morally obligated to vote. Voting is a privilege afforded to citizens of the United States. However, there is no moral absolute commanding the Christian to vote. If an individual believes that both candidates are evil, then they may choose not to vote. Remember, it is ultimately God who appoints rulers and removes rulers (Daniel 2:21; 4:17).
Two, the Christian can choose to vote for a candidate that is in line with their moral absolutes. Unfortunately, many succumb to the logical fallacy that choosing another option than the two presented allows a greater evil to come to power. Even if the majority is choosing one evil or another, believers must not (Exodus 23:2).
The third problem with this principle is that it is a moral fallacy. German-American political theorist Hannah Arendt stated, “If you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. […] The weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil.”
Ardent is correct — choosing the lesser of two evils is always a choice for evil. Is choosing evil an option for the moral absolutist? No, the moral absolutist is concerned only with choosing the moral positions. To choose an immoral position would be immoral. If an individual chose a moral position yet the immoral position won, the individual choosing morally is still moral regardless of the consequence.
Scripture presents a clear precept regarding evil — “abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). A believer cannot obey this precept and choose the lesser evil. In fact, the one who fears the Lord should hate evil (Proverbs 8:13).
On Romans 3:8, Albert Barnes states, “Whatever is evil is not to be done under any pretence. Any imaginable good which we may think will result from it; any advantage to ourselves or to our cause; or any glory which we may think may result to God, will not sanction or justify the deed.” Michael Marcavage of Repent America states, “Christians must turn from the endless cycle of voting for the lesser of evils and expecting an unrighteous act to produce a righteous result. From a communist to a cultist, choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil, and never should we do evil that good may come.”
So if choosing between the lesser of two evils is not a moral option, then for whom should the Christian vote? Considering that government officials are God’s ministers, the Scriptures actually present criteria for a morally pleasing candidate. Again, regardless of the circumstance, the believer must choose a candidate that aligns with God’s criteria.
Government is to uphold law. Is there any law greater than God’s Law? No, because God’s Law serves four purposes. One, it convicts sinners of their need of a Savior. Two, it restrains the progression of sin. Three, it provides the standard for obedience to God. Four, it provides the means for national blessing (Deuteronomy 26:16-19).
Leaders must worship God (Psalm 72:11; 138:4).
Leaders must be righteous (Proverbs 20:28; 29:2).
Leaders must be just (Psalm 82:2-4; Proverbs 29:4).
Leaders must be wise (Proverbs 8:12).
Leaders must be honest (Proverbs 17:7).
Leaders must be moral (Proverbs 31:3-5).
Leaders must be humble (Proverbs 8:13).
Leaders must be teachable (Ecclesiastes 4:13).
Leaders must provide security (Habakkuk 2:12; Psalm 94:20-21).
Leaders must have courage (Joshua 1:6-7).
Before answering this question, I want to be clear that as Christians we are called to be moral absolutists. A moral absolutists is someone who morality is based upon the universal precepts and principles of Scripture (i.e., divine truth).
The lesser of two evils principle states that when faced with selecting from two immoral positions, the least immoral should be chosen. The principle is derived from moral relativism. In the modern era, the lesser of two evils policy was part of United States’ Foreign Policy Strategy (i.e., the Kirkpatrick Doctrine) to justify supporting Communist Joseph Stalin during World War II. The belief was that Stalin was the lesser of two evils when compared to Hitler.
It was adopted by leftists who disapproved of the government’s support for the Vietnam War. Huffington Post writer, Stanford Jay Rosen stated, “Beginning with the 1968 presidential election, I often have heard from liberals that they could not vote for the lesser of two evils. Some said they would not vote; some said they would vote for a third party candidate.”
This principle has become part of the United States political vocabulary. Every election, voters who believe they are forced to vote for a candidate who is less evil than the other candidate. Further, the position is justified by believing that choosing the lesser evil is better than not voting at all or voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning, which will result in the greater of two evils winning.
The first problem with this principle is that it is focused on the consequence of the election. Moral absolutists are non-consequentialist. That is we need to make a decision based upon Scripture, not on the consequences. Thus, to subscribe to a principle that denies one’s entire moral position is fatal to one’s Biblical ethics.
The second problem with this principle is that is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A false dilemma presents two positions as the only possible options when there are more options. This dilemma is false because there are always more than two options. One, the Christian is not morally obligated to vote. Voting is a privilege afforded to citizens of the United States. However, there is no moral absolute commanding the Christian to vote. If an individual believes that both candidates are evil, then they may choose not to vote. Remember, it is ultimately God who appoints rulers and removes rulers (Daniel 2:21; 4:17).
- It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding. - Daniel 2:21
- the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, And bestows it on whom He wishes And sets over it the lowliest of men. - Daniel 4:17
Two, the Christian can choose to vote for a candidate that is in line with their moral absolutes. Unfortunately, many succumb to the logical fallacy that choosing another option than the two presented allows a greater evil to come to power. Even if the majority is choosing one evil or another, believers must not (Exodus 23:2).
- You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; - Exodus 23:2
The third problem with this principle is that it is a moral fallacy. German-American political theorist Hannah Arendt stated, “If you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. […] The weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil.”
Ardent is correct — choosing the lesser of two evils is always a choice for evil. Is choosing evil an option for the moral absolutist? No, the moral absolutist is concerned only with choosing the moral positions. To choose an immoral position would be immoral. If an individual chose a moral position yet the immoral position won, the individual choosing morally is still moral regardless of the consequence.
Scripture presents a clear precept regarding evil — “abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). A believer cannot obey this precept and choose the lesser evil. In fact, the one who fears the Lord should hate evil (Proverbs 8:13).
- The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate. - Proverbs 8:13
- Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a disgrace to any people. - Proverbs 14:34
- It is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts, For a throne is established on righteousness. - Proverbs 16:12
- And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), Let us do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just. - Romans 3:8
- What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? - Romans 6:1-2
On Romans 3:8, Albert Barnes states, “Whatever is evil is not to be done under any pretence. Any imaginable good which we may think will result from it; any advantage to ourselves or to our cause; or any glory which we may think may result to God, will not sanction or justify the deed.” Michael Marcavage of Repent America states, “Christians must turn from the endless cycle of voting for the lesser of evils and expecting an unrighteous act to produce a righteous result. From a communist to a cultist, choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil, and never should we do evil that good may come.”
So if choosing between the lesser of two evils is not a moral option, then for whom should the Christian vote? Considering that government officials are God’s ministers, the Scriptures actually present criteria for a morally pleasing candidate. Again, regardless of the circumstance, the believer must choose a candidate that aligns with God’s criteria.
Government is to uphold law. Is there any law greater than God’s Law? No, because God’s Law serves four purposes. One, it convicts sinners of their need of a Savior. Two, it restrains the progression of sin. Three, it provides the standard for obedience to God. Four, it provides the means for national blessing (Deuteronomy 26:16-19).
- This day the Lord your God commands you to do these statutes and ordinances. […] you should keep all His commandments; and that He will set you high above all nations which He has made, for praise, fame, and honor… - Deuteronomy 26:16-19
- The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. - Ecclesiastes 12:13
Leaders must worship God (Psalm 72:11; 138:4).
- And let all kings bow down before him, All nations serve him. - Psalm 72:11
- All the kings of the earth will give thanks to You, O Lord… - Psalm 138:4
Leaders must be righteous (Proverbs 20:28; 29:2).
- Loyalty and truth preserve the king, And he upholds his throne by righteousness. - Proverbs 20:28
- When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan. - Proverbs 29:2
Leaders must be just (Psalm 82:2-4; Proverbs 29:4).
- How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. - Psalm 82:2-4
- The king gives stability to the land by justice, But a man who takes bribes overthrows it.- Proverbs 29:4
Leaders must be wise (Proverbs 8:12).
- I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, And I find knowledge and discretion. - Proverbs 8:12
Leaders must be honest (Proverbs 17:7).
- Excellent speech is not fitting for a fool, Much less are lying lips to a prince. - Proverbs 17:7
Leaders must be moral (Proverbs 31:3-5).
- Do not give your strength to women, Or your ways to that which destroys kings. It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink, For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted. - Proverbs 31:3-5
Leaders must be humble (Proverbs 8:13).
- The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate. - Proverbs 8:13
Leaders must be teachable (Ecclesiastes 4:13).
- A poor yet wise lad is better than an old and foolish king who no longer knows how to receive instruction. - Ecclesiastes 4:13
Leaders must provide security (Habakkuk 2:12; Psalm 94:20-21).
- Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed And founds a town with violence! - Habakkuk 2:12
- Can a throne of destruction be allied with You, One which devises mischief by decree? They band themselves together against the life of the righteous And condemn the innocent to death. - Psalm 94:20-21
Leaders must have courage (Joshua 1:6-7).
- Be strong and courageous, for you shall give this people possession of the land which I swore to their fathers to give them. Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. - Joshua 1:6-7
RSS Feed