Who do you vote for when both sides are immoral?

We will have two candidates running for Congress in our district. One of them says he is pro-choice but for taking care of the disabled, poor and elderly. The other says he is pro life, but wants to end all government charity for the poor, disabled plus social security and Medicare for the elderly.
Which one is intrinsically evil? :getholy:

The pro-life candidate is not immoral. We, as Catholics, are not bound to support welfare. Even if it were immoral, abortion is a greater evil so you should vote for the pro-life candidate.

The pro choice candidate is intrinsically evil. And I don’t believe any one congressman/woman will get something like ending all benefits to the poor, disabled, and elderly will get far.

Which candidate is that? PM me if you don’t want to say on the forum. Thank you.

The hypothetical you presented has been answered correctly by the above posters.

I’d like to answer the broader question, in the title: “Who do you vote for when both sides are immoral?”

You must vote for the candidate who will cause or protect the greatest good. When there is no third viable option for election, and you know one of the two will be elected, you must vote (exception below). And when you vote, you have to look at the good each person can/will do and vote accordingly.

What you must NOT do is vote “for the lesser of two evils”. You should never vote for evil, but for good. This is mainly a point to make sure that you have the correct disposition.

Now, the exception: in cases where neither candidate has any good to offer, and the evil that both offer is very great, and little good can be done by voting for one over the other, it is acceptable not to vote.

This is the danger of being a single-issue voter. So in theory one candidate could be pro-life that totally anti-gay and tie women anti-immigration I definitely evil person but because they are pro-life they would get lots of people’s votes. Where as a great better candidate who happens to be pro-choice that would be a deal-breaker for many people on one issue, as they see any candidate pro choice equals automatically immoral and evil

The appropriate question is which candidate has a chance of doing good or limiting harm. Since there are several pro-life bills that have come before Congress recently, there is a good chance that the pro-life candidate will be able to use his vote in Congress to limit the harm caused by abortion. The pro-choice candidate will have a likely chance to use his vote to further the evil of abortion. There is just about zero chance that there will ever be a bill before Congress to eliminate all government aid to the poor and/or to end Social Security and Medicare. So the pro-life candidate will not have the chance to use his role in Congress to forward that agenda. His personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant since he can only act on bills that actually come before Congress.

Saying that you must vote in every election is like saying you must give to every good charity that asks for a donation.


I would vote prolife.

There are a lot of Catholics who feel like they are facing the same dilemma.

But, here’s the deal.

The one you say is pro-life, if he/she really wants to end all government charity for the poor, disabled, social security and Medicare is NOT pro-life. They are only pro-birth. To be pro-life you have to care about the orphan, the widow, the marginalized, the poor, the sick, the elderly long after birth.

If they willfully ignore the plight of the poor, the sick, and the elderly, they are violating what Christ has taught us.

One poster said it is unlikely that this candidate can get his way, but just a desire to shows evil intent, for as Christ told us, by just lustfully looking at a woman, adultery has already been committed.

Vote your conscience, considering all issues across the board, and take with a grain of thought anyone who tells you as a Catholic you should only vote on one issue.

Amusing analogy, but I fail to see the truth in it. Please explain how the analogy holds.

The more common predicament is when the allegedly pro-life candidate is obviously not personally prolife and whose loyalty to the anti-abortion movement is entirely political and most likely not very strong.

A person who thinks it acceptable to will the death of an innocent human being has an anti-life world view in my opinion…

If a person thinks that is OK to willfully murder an innocent human being, it tells you something about how that person thinks and who they are.

A person with an anti-life worldview, gives you a window into how they will make other decisions

WKW_69. You mentioned . . .

The other says he is pro life, but wants to end all government charity for the poor, disabled plus social security and Medicare for the elderly.

First of all, I would not call Government aids to the poor, disabled, etc., “charity”.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a good thing (to a certan extent).

I just wouldn’t term it “charity”.

But aside from the fact that I’ve never heard any politician say anything like wanting to get rid of “ALL” government programs for poor and disabled people etc. (although I’ve seen politicians get MIS-characterized as such) there ARE other ways apart from Government for society to help poor and disabled etc. people.

But as with “abortion”, when willfully killing an innocent human being is carried out . . . there are no acceptable alternatives for the now dead human, the now permanently injured mother, and the now resultant harmed society.

So keeping that all in mind WKW_69, what do YOU think?

God bless.


If the opportunity to donate to “every” good charity comes along, and if you have adequate means do it without harm to your family, then I submit that you must.

Not that the two are comparable, because you will not do anyone harm by voting against the promoter of the greater evil and the opportunity is definitely there.

But in this particular election and the administration to follow, Trump cannot turn pro-abortion and have any chance at all of re-election, and he’ll just end up alienating those with whom he’ll have to work on other issues.

Hillary Clinton’s situation is just the opposite. She cannot turn prolife without alienating her constituency.

The catechism enjoins us to give alms to the poor - to be charitable. But it does not say we must give to every charity or poor person we see. Similarly, the catechism enjoins us to engage in civic life by voting. But it doesn’t insist that we vote in every election. It just doesn’t. This is different from the requirement to attend mass every Sunday - not just once in a while. Because it does say that.

I find it hard to believe that there is a congressional candidate who literally wants to end all government charity for the poor and disabled, as well as social security and Medicare. Could you provide the name of the candidate?

I disagree with your assertion that such a position would necessarily mean the candidate is not truly pro-life. A candidate could believe that taking care of the orphan, the widow, the poor, the marginalized, the sick and the elderly, but advocate doing so outside of government programs. Personally, I believe that the more we can privatize charity, the better, although I would oppose any sudden changes that would instantly render those in need without resources in the short term.

From reading of Pope Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum,” it seems to me that charity is always an act of free will, and the more the state gets involved, the less true charity there can be. Moreover, while individuals can pick and choose which charities they contribute based on which organizations do the most good, the state takes its money by force and has very little accountability when it squanders the money it has taken.

The pro-life position is only concerned with one issue, whether an unborn child has the right to life. It doesn’t extend to such things as government funded programs and the death penalty (I know you didn’t mention this, I’m including it), those are separate issues. The “pro-choice” position is only concerned with allowing a woman, one party, to have the choice to kill her unborn child. Insisting that someone can’t be pro-life if they don’t support government funded services like welfare, is like saying someone can’t support the second amendment unless they support a felon’s right to own a gun.

If we expand what being pro-life means to include supporting government “charity” (not really charity if failure to agree to fund it equals jail time), then we would have to expand the pro-choice position. You would then be unable to call yourself pro-choice unless you support everyone’s choice to own a gun, support a parent’s choice to take advantage of a private school voucher program, etcetera.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.