Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[Nonsensei]

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.

Still not denying what I said, and now trying to paint me as a Trump supporter despite my having repeatedly made it clear I consider Trump and Hillary to be equally shit and will be voting for neither.

The typical "you're either with us or against us" clannish bullshit trap everyone seems to love getting caught in during an election year. Way to let yourself be manipulated by the system.

[Nonsensei]

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

No, and I explained why in the part of my post you decided to cut out.

[Baruch]

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

She screwed the American people since she was First Lady of Arkansas ... same as her evil husband.  So yes, she will continue to do what her track record says ... but people are in the Matrix about that.

[stromboli]

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..

Optimistic, but "a Jefferson arises" part is the problem. Look at the primaries we just went through. Why didn't we have more choice or different choices in either party? Between both parties we only had one individual who stood out as being for the people in Sanders. All the Republicans were pandering to the Evangelicals, and 2 people, Huckabee and Cruz, were Evangelicals. The reason Trump won was simply because he was the unique guy, not specifically an evangelical or a regular company guy.

Clinton won largely because she was a known quantity. Trump because of his uniqueness. The best candidate we had prior to Obama was Al Gore. Gore to me is as close to an ideal candidate as you can find; a vet, a man who can pass as religious and yet with a mind oriented to science, an intellect and a man who sees the future issues that are coming more clearly than most.

My only hope at this point isn't Clinton but who she brings in with her, who ends up Secretary of State and so forth. The primary system does a great job of filtering out Jeffersons, unfortunately. I'm afraid you will never see anyone of his capability in the White House ever again.

[Baruch]

You can't have another Washington or Jefferson without slavery.  We can have another Lincoln, but Obama is no Lincoln.

I hope also, that whoever wins, brings in good associates.  I don't have much good feeling about Trump in this, he is only good to tear down the Berlin Wall of DC.  He isn't a builder, ironically.  The Republicans are anti-big-government ... and pro-big-business.  If you want that, vote that.  Democrats are pro-big-government and pro-big-business.  If you want that, vote that.  If you anti-big-business, you are out of luck, comrade.

PS - Americans may be too narcissistic to find the common good in themselves ... and so can't actualize it in public discourse or public action.  Per the OP, this may be the real reason voting your heart is a bad thing, at least in the US.

[Mike Cl]

Still not denying what I said, and now trying to paint me as a Trump supporter despite my having repeatedly made it clear I consider Trump and Hillary to be equally shit and will be voting for neither.

The typical "you're either with us or against us" clannish bullshit trap everyone seems to love getting caught in during an election year. Way to let yourself be manipulated by the system.

I don't have to deny or not deny your assumptions.  And so you are not manipulated by the system?  Must live in another country then. 

If you don't like either, you are free to vote for Johnson.

[SGOS]

Voting your heart is immoral only if what's in your heart is immoral.  Voting according some idiosyncratic formula dictated by the status quo is neither moral or immoral, unless the status quo is immoral, or immoral to some degree, in which case, you would be immoral to a proportionate degree.

[Shiranu]

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/heres-a-list-of-all-the-science-that-donald-trump-denies/

Meh, Hillary... Trump... basically the same... :roll:

Voting your heart is immoral only if what's in your heart is immoral.

You have the choice to stop something terrible, horrible, horrendous, etc. from happening if you swallow your pride and take an action for something kinda bad, kinda good.

You decide to do nothing because your pride tells you not to.

If that is what you do, then it is arguable that your heart is indeed immoral. You have a choice to make and choose to do nothing out of principle, leading to more people getting hurt. That is, by most people's standards, immoral.


Basically the train situation... except instead of pushing someone in the way of the train to save someone, you push everyone in the way of the train so that you can feel better about yourself.

[SGOS]

In your case, you should vote for Hillary, because I assume you truly believe Trump would harm many people.  I would agree you might feel a moral obligation.  But I wouldn't in the choice between Hillary and Trump, because I don't know that Trump will harm more people than Clinton.  I could vote for Hillary, and indeed, I might, but not for any certainty or foreknowledge I have about Trump (or Hillary).  And I have no feeling of immorality about not knowing this with a high degree of certainty. 

Everyone determines for themselves what is moral for them, prioritizes their moral issues, and decides whether they should behave accordingly.  And of course, many people believe Hillary is the incarnation of the devil and will justify voting for Trump, much the way the religious right perceives the abortion issue and votes accordingly.  Given the nebulous quality of morality and ideological perceptions people have about good and evil, the morality argument seems somewhat like simply voting your conscience.

Now if you are talking about people being wrong by writing in Bernie Sanders or voting for Jill Stein, it sounds much like an attempt to keep everyone in line and voting as a block for the good of the Democratic party.  I think your morality argument won't get very far with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein supporters.  I would guess many of them will be voting their conscience anyway, and won't feel immoral about not advancing the cause of the Democratic party.  They may be thinking longer term, and seeing voting for a third party as the only way of eventually pushing the Democratic party to the left, and anything less would seem immoral to them.  They might be kooks in your opinion, but I don't think you will convince them that they are being immoral.

[Shiranu]

They may be thinking longer term, and seeing voting for a third party as the only way of eventually pushing the Democratic party to the left, and anything less would seem immoral to them.  They might be kooks in your opinion, but I don't think you will convince them that they are being immoral.

Change of the Democrats, as change of the Republicans, will come from within the party... not from without. That has little to do with morality and more just common sense. Look how much influence Bernie had by joining the party, of forcing the Democrats to address certain issues they wouldn't have otherwise. What third party has ever done that?

Same for the Republicans... look at how long libertarians and other far-right conservatives have been trying to make change with little to no effect. Yet once they joined the party, they managed to pull the party very far to the right in almost no time at all by forcing the mainstream to appeal to them.

Voting third-party at local level, state level... okay, that's fine and personally I think great because they actually stand a chance to win. But until those third parties can even win at a state-level, expecting them to make any difference at a national level without playing within the rules and forcing the major players to come towards their ideology or risk fracturing the party and turning away independents (who win elections) is, if not immoral, moronic.


And I say that as a Bernie supporter, with the caveat that I have always recognized him to be a one-trick pony type of politician. A very important one-trick, but a terrible president he would make nontheless. Bernie, Stein, all of them are more useful working to bring their fields of expertise and passion to a major party and using their independent appeal to force that party in their direction because that's just the way the system works.

[Nonsensei]

I don't have to deny or not deny your assumptions.  And so you are not manipulated by the system?  Must live in another country then. 

I'm only being manipulated by the system is the system's goal is to make me reject its two candidates.

If you don't like either, you are free to vote for Johnson.

Well according to this article I shouldn't be free to vote for Johnson because doing so won't prevent the Trump apocalypse or whatever. Apparently I am obligated to supplant my own take on the situation with that of a Hillary supporter or I am amoral.

[Shiranu]

Well according to this article I shouldn't be free to vote for Johnson because doing so won't prevent the Trump apocalypse or whatever. Apparently I am obligated to supplant my own take on the situation with that of a Hillary supporter or I am amoral.

*immoral

And, if by your sense of morality, Trump would do less harm, then you would be morally obligated by your obligation to society to vote for him. The article isn't saying vote for Hillary, it's saying vote for who you find more morally appealing and, again, if you think the two are remotely similar morally (and I don't mean that as an insult to either, I mean their policies are so different that they cannot be similar) then it is immoral to not try to stop the greater of two evils.

[Nonsensei]

Change of the Democrats, as change of the Republicans, will come from within the party... not from without. That has little to do with morality and more just common sense. Look how much influence Bernie had by joining the party, of forcing the Democrats to address certain issues they wouldn't have otherwise. What third party has ever done that?

Same for the Republicans... look at how long libertarians and other far-right conservatives have been trying to make change with little to no effect. Yet once they joined the party, they managed to pull the party very far to the right in almost no time at all by forcing the mainstream to appeal to them.

Voting third-party at local level, state level... okay, that's fine and personally I think great because they actually stand a chance to win. But until those third parties can even win at a state-level, expecting them to make any difference at a national level without playing within the rules and forcing the major players to come towards their ideology or risk fracturing the party and turning away independents (who win elections) is, if not immoral, moronic.


And I say that as a Bernie supporter, with the caveat that I have always recognized him to be a one-trick pony type of politician. A very important one-trick, but a terrible president he would make nontheless. Bernie, Stein, all of them are more useful working to bring their fields of expertise and passion to a major party and using their independent appeal to force that party in their direction because that's just the way the system works.

I'm sorry Shiranu but I think you have this one all wrong. Trump was not a republican party insider. He hasn't even been a Republican very long. He bent the RNC over a barrel and fucked his way inside them with a gas powered dildo and when the mess resolved into something comprehensible again the party had reformed around him. The RNC didn't change from within. It was hijacked by some twit businessman with enough money to but a PR team that knew how to pander to idiots. Those idiots, by the way, include some of the libertarians you are suggesting have had no effect. Guess what- they have.

In my opinion change from within a political party is virtually impossible. The people running it are very comfortable with how it works and are not very interested in reform. They are also some of the most elitist pieces of shit that can be found in the country, and think absolutely nothing of the voters as evidences by some of the attitudes displayed in the leaked DNC emails. It takes the American people voting for an external candidate to actually make things change in a party. It shames me that the Republicans managed to do this but the Democrats couldn't Instead they went with the same old crap and let the DNC stagnate for another 4-8 years.

[Shiranu]

I do not mean trump, I mean groups like the neocons, the tea party, etc. who shifted the party to the right ( and now are losing their footing).

Show me where a third party candidate has made nearly the influence Bernie has as a dem...

[Nonsensei]

*immoral

And, if by your sense of morality, Trump would do less harm, then you would be morally obligated by your obligation to society to vote for him. The article isn't saying vote for Hillary, it's saying vote for who you find more morally appealing and, again, if you think the two are remotely similar morally (and I don't mean that as an insult to either, I mean their policies are so different that they cannot be similar) then it is immoral to not try to stop the greater of two evils.

You're right. The article wasn't expressly suggesting I should vote for Hillary, but by posting it I'm pretty sure that's what you were implying.

As to the question of their morals, I think they are far more similar than you would like. I imagine you are paying attention to the thing they say they will do once they are elected president. If you only focus on that, you would be right. Obviously from a social perspective Trump appears far more reprehensible than Hillary. However, those things they are saying are nothing more than a deception, carefully calculated to yield the most votes. What really drives these candidates is the same thing: self interest. They both want to be president so they can serve themselves and their political allies. Service to the American people don't even rate on their list of priorities, and they're both so rich and elite that they simply don't share the same sense of urgency that we do about issues. To put it simply, they want power. They are the type of people for whom the pursuit of power is a way of life and the meaning of life. They will say and do whatever they have to in order to get that power.

Nothing either of them say can be trusted to indicate what sort of president they will be.