“If we are accountable for our vote and we use it to vote for evil, then we are not vindicated.” I don’t see how any vote for any politician who ever lived in any country is a vote for good as you’ve defined it–the absolute good of a holy God.

It is indeed possible for an evil person to intentionally vote for a specific evil that a given politician supports, but the opposite is not possible–how could a person possibly vote for “good” if no politician has yet achieved absolute moral perfection?

Should I therefore not vote?

It is indeed possible for an evil person to intentionally vote for a specific evil that a given politician supports, but the opposite is not possible–how could a person possibly vote for “good” if no politician has yet achieved absolute moral perfection?

Should I therefore not vote?

Sorry for the lateness of reply. The point I am making here (and your question) follows very similarly a biblical encounter near to the subject:

Matthew 19:23-26
23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

In other words, the politics example is not really about politics. If we are biblically accountable for our vote, then it seems silly that God would approve one evil man over the other. If we are not biblically accountable (or accountable in a different way) then maybe voting is something else.

The point is that we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that evil is not evil because of a made-up hierarchy (politics or otherwise).

I think the one thing your article lacked is the fact that we live between “good” and “evil” (however you want to define them). Nobody (human at least) is purely evil, none are purely good (at least those that are merely mortal). If we are to “avoid evil,” does this entail us avoiding even ourselves? Is this advocating a duplicity of identity–a Manichean duality? Where do we draw the line for practical applications of this (we can talk theory all day long, but that doesn’t get us any closer to living with it)?

I think we probably disagree on a more foundational level, as I do not agree that “nobody is purely evil.” Which, yes, it does follow that we “avoid ourselves” - I think this is the essence of the “pick up your cross” language in scripture.

I do agree that this kind of thinking makes the pragmatics super-complicated and very difficult. But if we hold to deduction as valid, then we must derive the pragmatics from theory - even if they are unorthodox and awkward (to say the least).

I do define these things, but I only do so very briefly.

Good is complete moral perfection. The only example I can imagine is a good, perfect, omniscient God.

If good is absolute, than evil is what is not good - i.e. everything else. Most people don’t like this definition because it is severely impractical. However, if we are arguing absolutes (a non-absolute world is also impractical) than we must derive that definition from the former definition of “good.”

I don’t view evil as a list of don’ts or do’s; or a specific mentality. The definition of evil is predicated on the definition of good.

You may view that as a cop-out, but that’s the way I see it.

If I were to give a “non-negating” definition. I might define evil as “force” - as the violation of freedom as found in nature and nature’s order.

“The Roman Catholic Church holds the view of natural law set forth by Thomas Aquinas, particularly in his Summa Theologica, and often as filtered through the School of Salamanca. This view is also shared by some Protestant churches.[citation needed]

The Church understands human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked. Humans are capable of discerning the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. There are many manifestations of the good that we can pursue. Some, like procreation, are common to other animals, while others, like the pursuit of truth, are inclinations peculiar to the capacities of human beings.

To know what is right, one must use one’s reason and apply it to Aquinas’ precepts. This reason is believed to be embodied, in its most abstract form, in the concept of a primary precept: “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.”[16] St. Thomas explains that:

there belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, insofar as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (77, 2). But as to the other, i.e., the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Rm. i), were not esteemed sinful.[17]

However, while the primary and immediate precepts cannot be “blotted out”, the secondary precepts can be. Therefore, for a deontological ethical theory they are open to a surprisingly large amount of interpretation and flexibility. Any rule that helps man to live up to the primary or subsidiary precepts can be a secondary precept, for example:

Drunkenness is wrong because it injures one’s health, and worse, destroys one’s ability to reason, which is fundamental to man as a rational animal (i.e. does not support self preservation).
Theft is wrong because it destroys social relations, and man is by nature a social animal (i.e. does not support the subsidiary precept of living in society).
Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one’s motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don’t always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with Aquinas’s cardinal or theological virtues. Cardinal virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature; they are:

Prudence
Justice
Temperance
Fortitude
His theological virtues are:

Faith
Hope
Charity

According to Aquinas, to lack any of these virtues is to lack the ability to make a moral choice. For example, consider a man who possesses the virtues of justice, prudence, and fortitude, yet lacks temperance. Due to his lack of self control and desire for pleasure, despite his good intentions, he will find himself swaying from the moral path.”

* God is Good and everthing that he created is Good

* Evil does not have a nature of it’s own, but only exists as a “corruption” of what is Good

* The Devil, Satan, was the greatest of Good angels, until “Pride” led him to choose himself over God and thus corrupted his Good nature. If you believe in the Devil as refered to in the bible, would represent complete evil, since the Angels are able to make a complete decision; either God or not.

* Human’s have a more limited knowledge and capability than angels, so our decision is in smaller steps of either “turning” towards God or away from him. And in doing so, we are either completing our nature, “to know and to love” God, or corrupting our nature in various degrees of evil by turning away from God and towards “worldly” things as described in the bible.

Ultimately only Good has a nature and Evil is only a corruption of a Good nature. That is why Good is unltimately more powerful than Evil. Evil does not have the ability to “create” and Creation comes from “Love”, the ultimate truth and basis of our existence.

Yes, evil is a necessary condition for freedom. But this doesn’t make evil “good” or “less evil” because it happens to be useful. However, even believing in relative “degrees” of evil still speaks to an objective standard to measure those degrees. In other words, saying “less evil” - less than what? In declaring that evil is absolute, I am ultimately trying to make the point that evil is a fixed, limited quantity (namely, by good). It might be unknowable, but this does not necessarily follow that it is relative. Although if one had a more relativistic/positivistic worldview, than of course, things like good and evil wound not only be unknowable but without limits also.

So, if we have a limited, absolute good - a total moral perfection in the entity of “God,” it follows that evil would also be limited, and thus absolute. I admit that this is a deduction on my part, and I don’t have proof. I have accepted an objectivist premise (in a sense, I suppose) that the universe is measurable, defineable, knowable, testable, etc…

I know that isn’t really “proof” for my case, but that it the kind of logic that I am employing here.