I have received my ballot in the mail. I haven't, much to my shame, put in the time to vote quite yet. I should get that done tomorrow, and have it in the mail by Monday. That should be enough time to get it back before 8 November. The advantage of that is it will give me an opportunity to think about some of the down ballot issues that haven't been getting enough press.
While discussing the presidential race with a friend, however, he pointed out that he had decided to vote for Evan McMullin, the low-polling third party. Since I already sounded off on third parties (and I still think they're a bad idea, especially since there's no party loyalty on which they can rely when it comes to the actual governing of the country), I don't want to reiterate anything else on the topic. Instead, I want to consider my friend's comment about voting for the person he thought would be best, rather than the one who would most likely win.
That's kept me thinking since our conversation ended. It isn't that I'm now considering third parties: I'm thinking about what I ought to do ethically. As a deeply convinced deontologist--where I believe the actions of a person are what ought to be considered via categorical imperatives--my friend's argument should be the best one for me selecting anyone other than Trump (who, I think I made clear is a distressing result of GOP co-opting of conservative values built around a fundamentally nasty* core).
On one level, my moral philosophy doesn't enter the picture. While I admire my friend for sticking with his principles, I find that a fraught thing (again, as I discussed in a different post) when it comes to politics. The principle of universality within Kantian ethics doesn't apply to personal opinions. I mean, that's one of the reasons why it's so useful for a philosophy: It isn't concerned with your preference in ice cream or if you're an anti-Stratfordian. It looks at choices in a universal context, and I don't think that the political race of 2016--or, indeed, casting a ballot--fits into that catholic** equation.
On another level, though, there is a hard part about being a deontologist (as opposed to the more common consequentialist or utilitarian): There's no exception to the morality. Carving out cases that don't apply to the rules--when it's obvious that the rules should apply--doesn't fly. Lying violates categorical imperatives. So how can I support any politician who is obviously lying? Does the politician's lies matter to me, or do I accept blame by electing*** someone who lies? And because all of them do lie--therefore, they're all immoral--then do I choose the one who lies the least? But if I'm compromising there, why not embrace other aspects of a candidate that I would rather see in office and find someone who, despite failures on her/his part, would do the job well?
I don't really know how to square this circle, but I do know that I'm less troubled by the election than a lot of my friends and coworkers. Perhaps there's a pragmatic side to me that is getting more attention than usual. Maybe it's the fact that I know that my vote will be against the majority of Utahns, so it's symbolic anyway.
Maybe it's because I know I'm not voting for my ethics--for who else has them but me, and I can't vote for myself?--and instead for a position of power that ought not to be bestowed upon someone who hasn't, through a history of involvement with the government to be run, demonstrated competency in that area.
So what am I voting for, then?
---
* Lol. Nasty.
** Purposefully not capitalized. I like having variety in my writing, but sometimes I mean a less-familiar definition.
*** Not that my vote necessarily elected the winner. I know there are some arguments for keeping the electoral college, but...seriously. At the very least, we should get rid of the winner-take-all approach almost all states utilize.
While discussing the presidential race with a friend, however, he pointed out that he had decided to vote for Evan McMullin, the low-polling third party. Since I already sounded off on third parties (and I still think they're a bad idea, especially since there's no party loyalty on which they can rely when it comes to the actual governing of the country), I don't want to reiterate anything else on the topic. Instead, I want to consider my friend's comment about voting for the person he thought would be best, rather than the one who would most likely win.
That's kept me thinking since our conversation ended. It isn't that I'm now considering third parties: I'm thinking about what I ought to do ethically. As a deeply convinced deontologist--where I believe the actions of a person are what ought to be considered via categorical imperatives--my friend's argument should be the best one for me selecting anyone other than Trump (who, I think I made clear is a distressing result of GOP co-opting of conservative values built around a fundamentally nasty* core).
On one level, my moral philosophy doesn't enter the picture. While I admire my friend for sticking with his principles, I find that a fraught thing (again, as I discussed in a different post) when it comes to politics. The principle of universality within Kantian ethics doesn't apply to personal opinions. I mean, that's one of the reasons why it's so useful for a philosophy: It isn't concerned with your preference in ice cream or if you're an anti-Stratfordian. It looks at choices in a universal context, and I don't think that the political race of 2016--or, indeed, casting a ballot--fits into that catholic** equation.
On another level, though, there is a hard part about being a deontologist (as opposed to the more common consequentialist or utilitarian): There's no exception to the morality. Carving out cases that don't apply to the rules--when it's obvious that the rules should apply--doesn't fly. Lying violates categorical imperatives. So how can I support any politician who is obviously lying? Does the politician's lies matter to me, or do I accept blame by electing*** someone who lies? And because all of them do lie--therefore, they're all immoral--then do I choose the one who lies the least? But if I'm compromising there, why not embrace other aspects of a candidate that I would rather see in office and find someone who, despite failures on her/his part, would do the job well?
I don't really know how to square this circle, but I do know that I'm less troubled by the election than a lot of my friends and coworkers. Perhaps there's a pragmatic side to me that is getting more attention than usual. Maybe it's the fact that I know that my vote will be against the majority of Utahns, so it's symbolic anyway.
Maybe it's because I know I'm not voting for my ethics--for who else has them but me, and I can't vote for myself?--and instead for a position of power that ought not to be bestowed upon someone who hasn't, through a history of involvement with the government to be run, demonstrated competency in that area.
So what am I voting for, then?
---
* Lol. Nasty.
** Purposefully not capitalized. I like having variety in my writing, but sometimes I mean a less-familiar definition.
*** Not that my vote necessarily elected the winner. I know there are some arguments for keeping the electoral college, but...seriously. At the very least, we should get rid of the winner-take-all approach almost all states utilize.
Comments