Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[Shiranu]

http://qz.com/717255/ethicists-say-voting-with-your-heart-without-a-care-about-the-consequences-is-actually-immoral/

Finding a candidate who embraces your values is understandable, crucial even. But fervent idealism, which places support for a certain candidate above all practical consequences of that support, is foolhardy. According to ethicists, it’s also immoral.


“The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,” says Jason Brennan, a philosopher at Georgetown University and author of The Ethics of Voting. “If they’re smart, they’ll vote for the candidate likely to best produce the outcome they want. That might very well be compromising, but if voting for a far-left or far-right candidate means that you’re just going to lose the election, then you’ve brought the world further away from justice rather than closer to it.”

“As a citizen, I have a duty to others because it’s not just me and my principles, but everybody,” says LaBossiere, who favors the utilitarian approach. “I have to consider how what I do will impact other people. For example, if I was a die-hard Bernie supporter, I might say my principles tell me to vote for Bernie. But I’m not going to let my principles condemn other people to suffering.”

So much truth is this article. These elections aren't about you, they are about everyone... and we do have a moral responsibility to make sure we do what is best for everyone, even if it means we swallow our pride.

[PickelledEggs]

I saw this article last night. It's good one.

[widdershins]

I disagree to an extent.  Voting is my right, not my duty.  I don't feel I have a duty to others to try to, for instance, get Hillary elected when I really want to vote for Bernie.  Yes, the purpose of voting is to produce outcomes, but electing leaders is not the only outcome which can come of voting.  If Hillary were to lose by a landslide because half of Democrats wrote in Bernie Sanders, you don't think that would "produce an outcome"?  It most certainly would wake up liberals and alert them that you don't have to be a docile pussy to get elected.

The only "duty" I have is to myself, as it is for all of us.  Hell, I don't have a "duty" to vote at all.  I could stay home.  That is my right.  And it's STILL also my right to bitch about the outcome, even if I do.  The ONLY reason we mostly vote for the devil or his brother is the "throwing your vote away" crowd who have convinced a majority of us that you have to vote red or blue and if you don't there's something wrong with you, you're doing it wrong, you're not American.  Fuck that.  I AM an American and as an American I have an absolute right to vote however I like.  The only thing I MUST do is live with the consequences.  In this case, the consequences of writing in Bernie Sanders for President is stupid scary.  In this case I would not even CONSIDER not voting or not voting blue because the consequences are scary as shit.  But in a NORMAL election it is my RIGHT to vote for someone I actually want in the position and that is how I will vote.

This last time around I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Braley, and neither could a lot of others.  So we got Joni fucking Ernst.  I REALLY did not want that stupid cunt in office, but this is Iowa.  You don't sue a neighbor over their chickens getting into your yard and you CERTAINLY don't wait until they deliver eggs to you just to be neighborly to tell them that they're being sued.  I had no duty to keep that dumb bitch out of office, but her getting elected was certainly not the only "outcome" which was produced.  Democrats are now fully aware that you can't be a prick and keep an office in Iowa.  This isn't Wisconsin.  Next time they'll offer up "not a prick".  In the meantime, the dumb cunt is comedy gold.  She's like Goofy, except evil and with power.  And I am happy to report the state didn't implode.  It isn't on fire.  There were no plagues or floods which wouldn't have come via climate change anyway.  It wasn't the end of the world, just someone I disagree with politically and intellectually and hate with a passion in power.

So all this talk of "duty to others", that's all bullshit.  We all talk about how bad a Trump presidency would be, but it's just that; all talk.  I don't REALLY think he'd start a war with North Korea or accidentally fire a nuclear missile.  In his case it would have the very real consequence of appointing a Supreme Court Justice, but worst case that's just going to keep the crappy almost balance we already had.  It's going to delay progress, not kill us all.  If someone wants to write in Bernie or whatever that is their right.  They have no duty to help you elect any given person or help the other guy elect any given person.  We all have to live with the "consequences", but realistically what those "consequences" or depend on who you're asking.  For racist white businessmen a Trump presidency probably would have very few "consequences".  Voting can bring about change, even when it doesn't win an election.  If enough people wrote Bernie in, yes, Hillary would lose, but I can pretty much guarantee it would still produce "change" and there will still be an America around four years later to try again.

[Nonsensei]

Huge gaping hole in this entire premise: that there is someone I can cast a vote for who is provably and objectively better for people than the alternative. Only people who consider Hillary to not be as bad as Trump will find this argument compelling. I am not one of those people. Both of these candidates are horrid, the only difference between them is the manner in which they are horrid.

Now let me ask you something. Are you anticipating a revolutionary, uplifting, reinvigorating 4 years under Hillary? I know you aren't. I KNOW you aren't. You know. You fucking KNOW what a bad candidate she is. But you'll vote for her. Maybe a little bit because you share some liberal values with her (or at least her platform) but mostly because you hate the fucking shit out of the people supporting Trump. If that isnt the very essence of "waving your flag" and voting because its all about "you and your principles" then frankly I don't know what is.

[Shiranu]

I'm sorry, but if you think Hillary's body of work aren't better than Trumps, then I think it is borderline possible to say you are objectively wrong, even with "better" being subjective.

The amount of people Hillary would help is statistically more than Trump would. And after watching the DNC, I am voting for a party that speaks of hope, of unity and just being decent human beings. I really think Hillary could be one of our better presidents. She reminds me in some ways of LBJ... hateable, does shit I disagree with but who fights his/her ass off to get shit done that makes the world a better place.

[PickelledEggs]

I disagree to an extent.  Voting is my right, not my duty.  I don't feel I have a duty to others to try to, for instance, get Hillary elected when I really want to vote for Bernie.  Yes, the purpose of voting is to produce outcomes, but electing leaders is not the only outcome which can come of voting.  If Hillary were to lose by a landslide because half of Democrats wrote in Bernie Sanders, you don't think that would "produce an outcome"?  It most certainly would wake up liberals and alert them that you don't have to be a docile pussy to get elected.

The only "duty" I have is to myself, as it is for all of us.  Hell, I don't have a "duty" to vote at all.  I could stay home.  That is my right.  And it's STILL also my right to bitch about the outcome, even if I do.  The ONLY reason we mostly vote for the devil or his brother is the "throwing your vote away" crowd who have convinced a majority of us that you have to vote red or blue and if you don't there's something wrong with you, you're doing it wrong, you're not American.  Fuck that.  I AM an American and as an American I have an absolute right to vote however I like.  The only thing I MUST do is live with the consequences.  In this case, the consequences of writing in Bernie Sanders for President is stupid scary.  In this case I would not even CONSIDER not voting or not voting blue because the consequences are scary as shit.  But in a NORMAL election it is my RIGHT to vote for someone I actually want in the position and that is how I will vote.

This last time around I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Braley, and neither could a lot of others.  So we got Joni fucking Ernst.  I REALLY did not want that stupid cunt in office, but this is Iowa.  You don't sue a neighbor over their chickens getting into your yard and you CERTAINLY don't wait until they deliver eggs to you just to be neighborly to tell them that they're being sued.  I had no duty to keep that dumb bitch out of office, but her getting elected was certainly not the only "outcome" which was produced.  Democrats are now fully aware that you can't be a prick and keep an office in Iowa.  This isn't Wisconsin.  Next time they'll offer up "not a prick".  In the meantime, the dumb cunt is comedy gold.  She's like Goofy, except evil and with power.  And I am happy to report the state didn't implode.  It isn't on fire.  There were no plagues or floods which wouldn't have come via climate change anyway.  It wasn't the end of the world, just someone I disagree with politically and intellectually and hate with a passion in power.

So all this talk of "duty to others", that's all bullshit.  We all talk about how bad a Trump presidency would be, but it's just that; all talk.  I don't REALLY think he'd start a war with North Korea or accidentally fire a nuclear missile.  In his case it would have the very real consequence of appointing a Supreme Court Justice, but worst case that's just going to keep the crappy almost balance we already had.  It's going to delay progress, not kill us all.  If someone wants to write in Bernie or whatever that is their right.  They have no duty to help you elect any given person or help the other guy elect any given person.  We all have to live with the "consequences", but realistically what those "consequences" or depend on who you're asking.  For racist white businessmen a Trump presidency probably would have very few "consequences".  Voting can bring about change, even when it doesn't win an election.  If enough people wrote Bernie in, yes, Hillary would lose, but I can pretty much guarantee it would still produce "change" and there will still be an America around four years later to try again.

So basically, your tl;dr is that because it's not obligatory and instead a right, it also means you have the right to be lazy and selfish.

And you're right, you do have the right to be selfish. But just know that is what you are being.

[PickelledEggs]

Huge gaping hole in this entire premise: that there is someone I can cast a vote for who is provably and objectively better for people than the alternative. Only people who consider Hillary to not be as bad as Trump will find this argument compelling. I am not one of those people. Both of these candidates are horrid, the only difference between them is the manner in which they are horrid.

Now let me ask you something. Are you anticipating a revolutionary, uplifting, reinvigorating 4 years under Hillary? I know you aren't. I KNOW you aren't. You know. You fucking KNOW what a bad candidate she is. But you'll vote for her. Maybe a little bit because you share some liberal values with her (or at least her platform) but mostly because you hate the fucking shit out of the people supporting Trump. If that isnt the very essence of "waving your flag" and voting because its all about "you and your principles" then frankly I don't know what is.

Bad, yes. Not anywhere as bad as Trump though.

[stromboli]

The problem I have with it is "fervent idealists" essentially grouping the people who follow Sanders without examining their motives or knowing their reasons. This is lumping a group of diverse individuals under one roof. So what is their message? We don't want people to be idealists? And the same "voting with your heart", meaning what? All the Sanders followers have a love crush on their guy?

I daresay that the people that follow any candidate have stated reasons for it, not just emotional responses. It is an implied either/or argument I don't buy into.

[Mike Cl]

Now let me ask you something. Are you anticipating a revolutionary, uplifting, reinvigorating 4 years under Hillary? I know you aren't.

Well, actually, you don't "know" what I think or feel. 

[Nonsensei]

Well, actually, you don't "know" what I think or feel. 

Well what I do know is that you didn't deny my assertion, just got uppity about me making it.

[Nonsensei]

I'm sorry, but if you think Hillary's body of work aren't better than Trumps, then I think it is borderline possible to say you are objectively wrong, even with "better" being subjective.

The amount of people Hillary would help is statistically more than Trump would. And after watching the DNC, I am voting for a party that speaks of hope, of unity and just being decent human beings. I really think Hillary could be one of our better presidents. She reminds me in some ways of LBJ... hateable, does shit I disagree with but who fights his/her ass off to get shit done that makes the world a better place.

That talk of hope and unity and being decent is standard Democratic party line. Ive been voting since 2000 and I've fallen for it every time. It never pans out. We never get the liberal utopia we are promised, or really anything else we are promised.

As to the fighting her ass off to get shit done, I'll tell you the same thing I told my mother when she said something similar about Trump.

She likes him because he is a successful business man. She considers his business acumen to be something this country really needs, and having someone who knows "business stuff" will be beneficial.

My response was that yeah, he is probably a shrewd businessman. But its only a plus in a candidate if he intends to use that skill to serve the American people rather than himself. I can easily believe Hillary will fight her ass off to achieve the goals she cares about as president. I just don't believe those goals will be in alignment with the welfare of the American people. She's dead center, and in the pocket of a lot of rich and powerful people. She will take them into consideration before she takes us into consideration.

[stromboli]

That talk of hope and unity and being decent is standard Democratic party line. Ive been voting since 2000 and I've fallen for it every time. It never pans out. We never get the liberal utopia we are promised, or really anything else we are promised.

As to the fighting her ass off to get shit done, I'll tell you the same thing I told my mother when she said something similar about Trump.

She likes him because he is a successful business man. She considers his business acumen to be something this country really needs, and having someone who knows "business stuff" will be beneficial.

My response was that yeah, he is probably a shrewd businessman. But its only a plus in a candidate if he intends to use that skill to serve the American people rather than himself. I can easily believe Hillary will fight her ass off to achieve the goals she cares about as president. I just don't believe those goals will be in alignment with the welfare of the American people. She's dead center, and in the pocket of a lot of rich and powerful people. She will take them into consideration before she takes us into consideration.

Mostly agree. Hillary has played the game long enough to know who she can piss off and who not to. She isn't going to discipline Wall Street and even if she opposes the TPP she hasn't strayed outside the party line in doing so. But knowing all that doesn't make her different or better than Obama or her hubby. Obama played the table in a very similar manner. He didn't do things that he could have done, and appointed Holder as Attorney General knowing he was a Wall Street boy.

What remains to be seen is if she empowers people like Elizabeth Warren and others who will oppose Wall Street. Warren opposed Obama on a few issues. The other point is her hubby has been in the seat for 8 years and is certainly a smart player, they both are. I'll take a Harvard lawyer with political acumen over a self aggrandizing egotistical bully. Center is better than far right.

[Mike Cl]

Well what I do know is that you didn't deny my assertion, just got uppity about me making it.

If any 'uppity' is happening it is you.  You cannot know what I think or feel--so any assertion you make is simply guess work or simply false.  But I do find myself understanding why you have more of an affinity for Trump than Clinton.

[Shiranu]

I just don't believe those goals will be in alignment with the welfare of the American people.

Then you believe her track record is not indicative of what she would push as a president?

[aitm]

I am beginning to think the catastrophic disaster that a trump presidency could be, might just be what this country needs for the vast majority to ask themselves, "how the fuck did we allow these two parties to steal our country from us and how do we get it back?" And maybe, a Jefferson arises..