Would it be morally wrong to run against an acquaintance in an election?

Morally wrong? I don’t see how it could be. There is no way to ensure that future political rivals never make one another’s acquaintance.

there is no friendship at stake, so no one is a backstabber, nor is either selfish. there is no “reserving” a run for office by announcing first. If that were so, there’d never be a contested election in a club, since one may presume in most clubs that everyone is at least acquainted with other members.

and as @Jeruba said, there is no moral violation here.

Agree with the above: nothing amoral or selfish going on here. This could be changed with a number of variables, i.e. if Andy and Bob were closer friends. Say they both decided to run for an office, and discovered this after the fact. One then starts a smear campaign against the other to gain cred among the voters. Say he then uses actual, factual information in his mudslinging: “Hey, I know this guy, and he still wets his bed.” He’s used knowledge gleaned from their friendship and turned it against his opponent for personal gain. I’d call that highly unethical behavior—and possibly amoral, too. (Sometimes the line between the two is a little blurry to me!)

According to the facts above is Andy (1) selfish or (2) a backstabber?
Just as much as Bob is. So no.

Was it morally wrong for Andy to run against his acquaintance Bob?
Obviously not. Andy’s running doesn’t automatically mean he’s going to win, as long as the election is fair there’s nothing unfair or immoral here. Then again in most schools we have a rule that at least 3 people have to run for a given position otherwise the election can’t take place, so that scenario wouldn’t work here.

Responses to all the hypotheticals: No and No. For the same reasons as above. All Andy did was give an alternative to the voters, which is not morally questionable because it means the decision isn’t ultimately in his hands. He didn’t take the opportunity from Bob he just offered himself as an alternative, the voters decide in all cases.

(Hypothetical) According to the facts above is Andy (1) selfish or (2) a backstabber?

Bob is sort of right. Since they are equally qualified, it shows that Andy’s nomination of himself was out of ego, rather than out of utility, since Bob was already in the running, and both are equally qualified. It is illogical of Andy to challenge Bob, if they are equally qualified.

Was it morally wrong for Andy to run against his acquaintance Bob? It was socially wrong. It wasn’t necessary. An equally qualified candidate was already running, and Andy decided to put stress into an acquaintanceship for no logical reason.

Twist 1.
Is Andy a selfish backstabber? / Is it morally wrong for Andy to run against Bob? No, because he feels he is more qualified and therefore, he must run, for the good of the whole. He must demonstrate why he is more qualified to justify running.

Twist 2
Is Andy a selfish backstabber? / Is it wrong for Andy to run against Bob?”
No, because the fact 3 people nominated someone means almost nothing.

@Kraigmo You’re assuming they know and accept that they’re equal.

@Kraigmo Interesting. I respect your opinion.

However, even if they know and accept that they are equal, the hypo states that Andy wanted to run for the position presumably because he believes that he is also qualified. Of course, it would be a different story if Andy ran out of spite, but there are no indications that this is the case here.

Andy’s actions could also be logical. Let’s say that both Andy and Bob later apply for jobs. If Andy does not run, Bob would win by default. All else being equal, Bob can probably make a better case of his leadership abilities (at least on paper) than Andy by pointing to his experience as Secretary of XYZ club. On the other hand, if Andy runs, he might at least have a shot at being able to show his leadership abilities.

Future career potential is completely irrelevant. No one should be expected to refrain from some activity on the grounds that at a later time in his life he could make a rival candidate for employment look less well qualified by comparison. The argument is simply ridiculous. If anything, each prospective employee is entitled to make himself appear as appealing a candidate as possible, within all applicable ethical limitations.

Besides, not all work positions are leadership positions, and a judgment on the suitability of a candidate is up to the prospective employer and not to schoolchildren at some time in the past.

@Jeruba That’s what I meant. If Andy runs and wins, he could be making himself more appealing as a employment candidate.

In any case, Bob is quite mad at Andy. The question then becomes, should Andy do anything to make Bob less mad or just let things go? I don’t feel that Andy should apologize as he has not done anything unethical. Trying to explain himself to Bob could make things worse. I’m inclined to say that Andy should just let it be.

It is neither morally or socially wrong for Bob to run for a position against Andy. Bob is not entitled to hold the position by virtue of wanting it. Bob’s response to Andy running indicates that his interest in the position is self-serving, and not the interests of the organization.

1. Andy is not a selfish backstabber. Bob is an acquaintance, not a friend or relative. Andy is under no obligation to pander to Bob’s ego.
2. The fact that Bob is nominated and Andy nominates himself speaks to the idea that Andy feels he is qualified to be of service to the organization in that capacity. Bob may be a slacker idiot with lots of friends who only wants the position to put on his resume. Andy may want to actually do the work required for the office.
3. Andy wins. Good for Andy, good for the organization. Next.
4. Bob wins. Bob has the satisfaction of knowing that he was chosen in a situation where there was choice. Andy, while disappointed that he didn’t win, must find some other way to be of service to the organization.

Andy is neither unethical nor selfish. He has an absolute right to run for the office, as does Bob. The outcome of the election has nothing to do with the right to run for office.

No problem. My son ran for a council seat. His opposition was his best friend. My son lost by only a few votes and they both continued to be best friends, even today. My son became the west coast director of FEMA and his best friend became mayor of my city.

In none of the conditions you describe is Andy selfish or a backstabber or morally wrong. He is an acquaintance of Bob’s. He wanted to run. Good for him.