"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act." ~ Proverbs 3:27
The
story of the Good Samaritan, found in Luke 10:25-37, is a parable where
a Samaritan, a stranger to the Jew, helps a beaten and robbed traveler
after others, including a priest and a Levite, passed by without
offering assistance. The Samaritan’s act of compassion demonstrates the
principle of loving one's neighbor, which can extend to the idea of civic responsibility in a republic.
The civic responsibility is voting. It is an act of loving one's neighbor. And what is loving one's neighbor? It is seeking the good for him.
What if the choice of candidates is between the lesser of two evils?
Having to vote for the "lesser of two evils" is morally supported. The parable teaches that it's the action taken to help, rather than the perfection of the solution, that defines our moral duty.
Voters can see neither candidate as an ideal choice, but still have a duty to choose who can potentially do the least harm or the most good for society. Here's how the connection between the Good Samaritan and voting for the lesser of two evils can be understood:
1. Minimizing Harm for Neighbors: The Samaritan didn’t solve all the problems of the wounded man, but he took action to minimize immediate
harm. Voters choosing leaders - even the "lesser of two evils," are
making a choice - not ideal but still seeking to prevent greater harm
from coming to the society. Not voting, or leaving decisions to others,
may lead to greater suffering for one’s neighbor.
2. Practical Compassion: The
Good Samaritan did what he could with what he had, even though he
wasn’t in a perfect position to fix everything. Voting for an imperfect
candidate is an act of practical compassion, where the aim is to prevent
policies or leaders that might worsen conditions for others.
3. Moral Responsibility, Even in Difficult Choices:
The Samaritan’s actions were based on his recognition of his moral
responsibility to help. Voting, even in an election where the choices
are flawed, reflects the same sense of moral obligation. It acknowledges
that disengagement from the process leaves others more exposed to
harmful outcomes.
4. Avoiding Indifference: In the
parable, the priest and the Levite were criticized for their
indifference, which allowed the man’s suffering to continue. Similarly,
refusing to vote because of dissatisfaction with the candidates may
reflect a form of indifference that leaves important decisions in the
hands of others. By voting, even reluctantly, a person engages with the
system and makes an attempt to reduce potential harm.
5. Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils as an Act of Stewardship:
The Good Samaritan took charge of the man's recovery and acted as a
steward of his well-being. In voting, individuals act as stewards of
their community, even if their choices are not ideal. The focus is on
the consequences of inaction versus the potential for mitigating harm through action.
My Father used to say, "You can curse the darkness or light a candle." In
this post I have advocated voting - even if for the lesser of two evils
- not just because it is a pragmatic choice, but because it is a
Christian ethical one, rooted in the duty to love one's neighbor.
And if we really understand loving one's neighbor as seeking the good for him, not voting isn't really an option is it?
