Ship of Fools: The ethics of voting

Thread: The ethics of voting Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030570

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

On the Trump thread, Enoch said:

quote:
I've commented before on these threads, that I've come to the conclusion that, very rare though it is that one can say such a thing, to have voted for Trump is not just stupid, immature, naive or unwise, but does actually tip over into being a sin.

I don't agree with this but neither do I dismiss it and would like a thread to clarify the moral issues in voting. Considering this in the light of the specific example of the recent US election is, in my view, helpful because I believe the decision was genuinely difficult.

So what aspects of a voting decision make is directly evaluatable in terms of christian ethics, such that one can say that one option is against the line of christian ethics whilst the other is at least neutral? And how do you apply these principles to the specific case?

I don't know how I would have voted. I have been put off Hillary by several progressive left-of-centre gurus who I follow. Maybe wrongly, but it does raise the side question of How much is a voter required to research behind the headlines? And I have been put off Trump by Trump. At least he covers himself in shit rather than outsourcing that.

Is it a sin to vote for somebody morally reprehensible (yes I know we are all sinners but come on . . ). If so it has to be a third party or abstain. So assume it is not.

If in your ethics, both candidates offer benefits and downsides, and you choose the one which is your red-line (immigrants vs fetuses) is that a permissible choice?

Is the fact of experience in the political structure directly a moral issue?

Any others?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I have just got back from voting in the French right-wing/centre primary - quite a new beast in the French political landscape.

To do so I had to commit to supporting "alternance" (i.e. not vote socialist) and to the "republican values of the right and the centre".

I did quite a bit of soul-searching to decide whether I could sign up to that, but decided it was broad enough that I could.

My reason for voting was to cast a vote for Alain Juppé as the best-placed candidate, in my opinion, to beat Marine Le Pen in the second round of the presidential election next May. I also agree, broadly, with his views on religious freedom and immigration, compared to those of the other contenders.

I have no idea about much else, but those factors and the real threat of a Le Pen victory were enough to get me to the ballot box.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The reasons behind a vote are usually complex, and I would hesitate to call any particular vote to be a sin.

The attitudes we all carry with us maybe sinful and lead us to voting in sin. It doesn't mean that anyone else voting for the same candidate does so for the same sinful reasons.

If someone is a racist and votes for an openly racist candidate then their sin is their racism, their vote simply reflects their sin. Someone else may vote for the same candidate because they think that will keep more money in their hands. Their sin is selfishness rather than racism.

Unfortunately I can't think of any way any of us can't take our sins with us to the voting booth.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Sad to say, voting is increasingly a matter of faute de mieux. Even more sad to say is that for many the opportunity cost of voting has reached the point where the energy required to participate is no longer worth the effort. The anarchist slogan "Don't vote. It only encourages them!" has an increasing appeal.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Sad to say, voting is increasingly a matter of faute de mieux.

This is because we do not do our proper work. Voting in the big events is not enough, voting itself is not enough. We must make our voices heard always, be informed and we must never be complacent or apathetic.

quote:

The anarchist slogan "Don't vote. It only encourages them!" has an increasing appeal.

This attitude does not suit the anarchist, but the authoritarian. By our low participation in the process, we facilitate their agenda.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The reasons behind a vote are usually complex,

The reasons behind a voting result might be, but the reason behind a particular person's vote is typically simple.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

It was not a sin. Americans had to choose between 2 evils, and they have chosen the least evil. Choosing between someone who says nasty things about some people (most of them enormously exagerated by the media, who worked for the other candidate) and someone who is a representative of the stablishment and is responsible for thousands of human deaths, for much of the mess in the middle east, not to mention being a liar and criminal. So, I agree that calling a fat woman "fat" is not a nice thing to do, but I´d rather vote for a foul mouthed person then a death queen.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have just got back from voting in the French right-wing/centre primary - quite a new beast in the French political landscape.

To do so I had to commit to supporting "alternance" (i.e. not vote socialist) and to the "republican values of the right and the centre".

I don't know how this would go down in France, but does that sound like the centre-right and right have decided that to be socialist and French are incompatible? We're seen some pretty unsavoury aspects and assumptions about patriotism recently and I'm wondering if this is another symptom of the same thing.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Choosing between someone who says nasty things about some people (most of them enormously exagerated by the media, who worked for the other candidate) and someone who is a representative of the stablishment and is responsible for thousands of human deaths, for much of the mess in the middle east, not to mention being a liar and criminal.

Right.
Trump built a casino in Atlanta, and when it went bust walked away leaving behind a string of people who'd worked for it unpaid. He got away with it because he could afford more lawyers.
What has Clinton done that is remotely in that league?
Trump ran a scheme Trump University, which he has just settled out of court, which according to the people who signed up was basically a scam. He's only avoided admitting wrongdoing because he can afford more lawyers.
What has Clinton done that is remotely in that league, let alone criminal?

If the mainstream media worked for Clinton why did they so widely report Comey's groundless allegations about Clinton's emails eleven days before the election?

The mess in the Middle East is not down to Clinton. It's largely the mess left by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. So that's a lie. Meanwhile, Trump is proposing to stand by and cheer as Putin and his allies get on with slaughtering civilians.

As for Trump and lying: one example will have to do, because there are too many to list. Example from the Guardian - which no doubt you'll consider mainstream and therefore dodgy, but do you say the facts are untrue? : Trump's meeting with Obama was scheduled to last an hour. The first thing Trump said at the press conference afterwards was that the meeting was only scheduled to last fifteen minutes and that it overran. That's not just lying - that's pathological lying.

[ 20. November 2016, 20:13: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't know how this would go down in France, but does that sound like the centre-right and right have decided that to be socialist and French are incompatible?I think what it is actually intended to mean is "we are more palatable than the Front National".

The early results are giving François Fillon a clear lead, which just shows that more pollsters are going to eat bugs. It looks like Sarkozy is not going to make it to the second primary round, which is already a good thing in my view.

[ 20. November 2016, 20:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It was not a sin. Americans had to choose between 2 evils, and they have chosen the least evil.

I was going to ignore this, but since Dafyd acknowledged it...
No, they had a choice between a strangely unlikeable, professional politician and an orange, shit-throwing racist, misogynist monkey with a prepubescent level of personal control and no concept of reality. And they chose the latter. [Disappointed]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The reasons behind a vote are usually complex,
The reasons behind a voting result might be, but the reason behind a particular person's vote is typically simple.

Yes,there are some people who will always vote for a particular party, regardless of who the candidate is, and I suppose that's quite a simple reason. Though, when you ask why that party rather than another then things get more complex - combinations of family tradition, tribal loyalty, gut instinct etc - though, probably not careful consideration of policies which IME tends to be far more likely among people who would at least consider voting for someone else.

But, anyone who does consider policies is ultimately going to go through a complex assessment of the policies of different candidates compared to their personal views - unless it's an exceptionally unusual circumstance it's unlikely that any candidate would entirely represent the views of any individual, so when we go to vote we're balancing agreement in some policy areas with disagreement in others. All of which is conducted in an environment of conflicting media messages, assessment of character and personality on top of policy, and other factors.

Even a decision not to vote, beyond simple laziness, is potentially a complex issue.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

It's probably been acknowledged on another thread about the US election but we in the UK (and in Europe) don't really grasp the dislike and rejection of Hilary Clinton by Americans.

I'm pretty sure that a sizeable minority bought into Trumps rhetoric because they to channel a level of every 'ism' Trump spouted.

For many who voted Trump I could accept they did so because they understand Clinton to be so utterly corrupt and untrustworthy.

The email scandal that Clinton could never put a lid on gave her a reputation she could not be trusted with sensitive state secrets.

The Benghazi affair meant she was held culpable for the deaths of American soldiers and civil servants.

Then there is the belief she harassed/bribed/intimidated women who allegedly had relationships with Bill.

On top of this there is the accusations the Clintons systematical misuse funds from their foundation.

Throw in the dislike for the 'establishment' and usual suspicion of politicians.

All this could construct a view that ethically a person could not possibly vote for Clinton.

All I am glad about being British is that the responsibility was not mine to choose between Trump or Clinton!!

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

lilBuddha--

Actually, we chose Hillary in the popular vote. It's the electoral system that (tentatively) chose Donald. The actual members of the electoral college will confirm Donald--or not...

[ 20. November 2016, 21:16: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
It's probably been acknowledged on another thread about the US election but we in the UK (and in Europe) don't really grasp the dislike and rejection of Hilary Clinton by Americans.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lilBuddha--

Actually, we chose Hillary in the popular vote. It's the electoral system that (tentatively) chose Donald. The actual members of the electoral college will confirm Donald--or not...

Not being mean, but that is irrelevant because that is not how the system works.

[ 20. November 2016, 23:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

lilBuddha--

Thanks for "not being mean", and I'm not being mean, either.
[Angel]

But you did focus on our choice, and how disappointing it was. Our choice, our popular vote, is for Hillary. If you think that our choice doesn't matter, then please don't blame us for it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lilBuddha--

Thanks for "not being mean", and I'm not being mean, either.

But you did focus on our choice, and how disappointing it was. Our choice, our popular vote, is for Hillary. If you think that our choice doesn't matter, then please don't blame us for it.

It is disheartening by how little that majority was. Brexit, that and the rise of populism in Europe are very worrying trends. Especially for the not so pasty pale.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Well I don't see much support for the idea that voting for Trump is per se morally wrong. Maybe there isn't any.

It is generally viewed as overreach for religious leaders to make unambiguous pronouncements on elections, and the days when the Vatican decreed it a mortal sin for Italians to vote communist seem long gone.

The difficulty of getting rock solid data on political figures is high. Two US journalists who have fed my opinions are Robert Scheer and Ken Silverstein. I'd be interested in informed opinions as to how flakey these are. I don't think either of them is pro Trump, sfaik Scheer was going to vote Green and Silverstein abstain.

This raises the obvious point that opinion formers have an extra responsibility when slagging off their own natural preferred option, since people will tend to take them more at face value, then, say, Bannon going after Hillary, for obvious reasons.

[ 21. November 2016, 08:06: Message edited by: anteater ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Clearly politics is about ethics. Our treatment of immigrants, minorities and the poor, our use or non-use of torture are ethical issues, and this election will make a difference.

Voting can only not seem an ethical issue if you ramp up the blame. Is a certain person guilty of sin? That's a heavy charge. Their decision making might have been faulty, they might have given too much weight to certain factors so we wouldn't want to condemn them as if they had done the water-boarding or whatever themselves.

But ethics is not about plausibly avoiding the guilty charge. It's about the world we all contribute to making, so voting is certainly an ethical matter.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It is generally viewed as overreach for religious leaders to make unambiguous pronouncements on elections, and the days when the Vatican decreed it a mortal sin for Italians to vote communist seem long gone.

In preaching prior to elections I have always been careful to neither advocate nor criticise individual candidates. But I always ask people to think carefully about the candidates' attitudes to issues that Hatless enumerates, and to make sure that they don't just vote for the party which panders to their prejudices or promises to put more money into their pockets. There'll never be a perfect candidate or party - but before God we should seek to cast our vote for the "least worst".

[ 21. November 2016, 09:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

If Le Pen makes it to the second round here, that's going to be a really difficult challenge for me.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

If it is true that for evil to triumph, all that is necessary is for good people to do nothing, then surely the most common 'sin' in any election is not to vote. On a personal basis, it could be no more than the venial sin of laziness, but these little errors of omission all add up. And I believe that the number of people who fail to vote because they are simply confused is substantially smaller than of those who can't be bothered, or think the result's a foregone conclusion anyway. I'm not sure how I could prove that though.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Polly:
[qb] It's probably been acknowledged on another thread about the US election but we in the UK (and in Europe) don't really grasp the dislike and rejection of Hilary Clinton by Americans.

ISTM, it is more projection than reality. With varying levels of misogyny thrown in. Though, IMO, she does not brim with charisma.

Thing about al the accusations and trials is that she came out fine after them. The people who went after her were not her friends, if there were something to find, it would have likely been.

But many accept politicians as being corrupt or at least compromised. So any accusation sticks more than it is warranted.
[qb] lilBuddha--

Ok - so throw in a fair amount of paranoia with all the above, feed it to the existing distrust and hate and then it becomes understandable why reasons/excuses not to vote for Clinton on ethics grounds is an option.

All this ignores the fact that over 25 years and I believe in the region of £50 million dollars has been spent trying to find some kind of proof has failed.

I actually think that ethics played a huge part in many peoples choice to vote Trump. In my view this ethics choice is poorly framed and I don't agree with it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Actually, we chose Hillary in the popular vote.

Sure - by a million votes or so, which is far closer than an election against Donald Trump has any right to be. The only closer election in anything like recent history was Bush/Gore.

For whatever reason, Hillary Clinton attracts a visceral level of hate. The "she's a crook" message has stuck. (Making millions of dollars from giving speeches to bankers (the only group who rank lower in public approval ratings than politicians) does not add to the perception of her honesty.)

Frankly, being anything less than 5 million or so votes ahead of Trump should be scored as an embarrassing failure.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:

I actually think that ethics played a huge part in many peoples choice to vote Trump. In my view this ethics choice is poorly framed and I don't agree with it. [/QB]

I find this difficult to believe. His many frauds and corruptions are common knowledge -- Trump University, the casinos, the stiffing of small contractors, and so forth. His voters simply refused to consider these ethical lapses important. And that is where the sexism comes in. A woman must not only be better than her male opponent. She must be perfect.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well I don't see much support for the idea that voting for Trump is per se morally wrong. Maybe there isn't any.

So, voting for a man who advocates racism, giving the nuclear button to a man who cannot handle Twitter, a man who has little understanding of the job he is going for and only a passable understanding of the job he has; all because you cannot stand Clinton: you* find no sin there? That millions in the US {i]will[/i] suffer if he does half of what he promised, that the world became even less stable the moment his win was announced, all because you feel Clinton is crooked: no sin there?

*All yous general

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well I don't see much support for the idea that voting for Trump is per se morally wrong. Maybe there isn't any.
So, voting for a man who advocates racism, giving the nuclear button to a man who cannot handle Twitter, a man who has little understanding of the job he is going for and only a passable understanding of the job he has; all because you cannot stand Clinton: you* find no sin there? That millions in the US {i]will[/i] suffer if he does half of what he promised, that the world became even less stable the moment his win was announced, all because you feel Clinton is crooked: no sin there?

*All yous general

I would suggest it is difficult to accept but not necessarily difficult to believe because Trump is going to be President.

He didn't win just because a sizeable minority is racist. I simply don't accept that half of America is either racist or sexist.

He didn't just win because of the white male vote.

He won because women voted for him and ethnic minority groups voted for him, not just in small amounts but in significant numbers even though he offended almost all of them.

We were getting interviews on tv before the election of black, asian, Mexican voters both men and women who said that the corruption accusations levelled at Clinton were of a concern, to a point they would vote for Trump I think ethics played a much bigger role than we want to accept.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It was not a sin. Americans had to choose between 2 evils, and they have chosen the least evil.
I was going to ignore this, but since Dafyd acknowledged it...
No, they had a choice between a strangely unlikeable, professional politician and an orange, shit-throwing racist, misogynist monkey with a prepubescent level of personal control and no concept of reality. And they chose the latter.

Was the coronation of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party a sin? Trump represents an existential threat to civilization and the Democrats went out of their way to nominate one of the few people he could possibly beat? I know why all of those people voted for Trump in the primary. Trump recognized that voters who went for Buchanan and Perot were being ignored and made a play for them while the rest of the candidates ignored them. Why did all those people vote for Hillary? Why did they give all that money to Hillary? Trump may be an idiot but he outsmarted the entire Washington establishment. So, what does that say about the people who have been running the United States for the past 60 or so years?

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

Huge apologies as I was replying to a comment from Brenda Clough but wasn't paying attention and used comments from Lil Buddha instead....sorry [Roll Eyes]

!!!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As it’s my words that have provoked this thread, perhaps I’d better explain the basis for them.

First of all, I said

quote:

very rare though it is that one can say such a thing

.
That's important. Off hand, this is the only example I can think of in my lifetime.

There have been plenty of occasions - the Brexit referendum is one - when I have thought it was stupid to vote for one of the options. But it was merely that. And that's my opinion. And it's not usually sinful to be stupid. There are those who will disagree with my opinion. There would have been some people whose reasons for voting for either choice were personally unethical, e.g. racist one way or avaricious the other, the choice itself was not per se a moral issue.

I don’t normally hold with clergy, and others, who wield the big ethical stick to try to persuade others that their favoured candidates and policies or that voting for them occupy some moral high ground. I happen to believe that one of the subsidiary benefits of being a Christian is that it lets one off believing that in a little while, politics, ideologies or public heroes are going to solve the world’s problems, that ‘there’s good times coming’. There aren’t. That’s true whether the prescription is alleged to be either Marxism, neoliberalism, an Islamic caliphate, Pierre Poujade, national-socialism or the opposite of any of those.

Under an absolutist constitution, such as the Roman Empire, or many traditional monarchical regimes, us ordinary folk get no say in who will rule over us or on what basis. We have to put up with what were given and make the best of it. If we have a vote, it is both our privilege and responsibility to exercise it. That is so even though under most constitutions, the actual ability most of us have to influence events is small > zero.

In doing so there are are a number of things we’ll want to weigh up, and which we should weigh up. The following are salient,

1. Which result is more likely to result in our being able to,

quote:
lead a tranquil and quiet life, free to practise our religion with dignity

(viz 1 Tim 2:2).

2. Which candidate[s] appear the most competent.

3. Which candidate[s] appear to have more, or less, integrity.

4. What policies the candidate[s] advocate - and taking into account 1, 2 & 3 whether we think they have the ability or any real intention of implementing them successfully rather than disruptively or not at all.

How we balance the relative importance of these is a matter for each of us individually to balance. Personally, I suspect I rate 2 & 3 a lot higher than 4. I suspect some shipmates rank 4 more highly than I do. Nevertheless, nobody is entitled to tell us we should do this according to their priorities rather than our own. It is IMHO an abuse to hector others by telling us we should decide solely on the basis of policies, 4, and to ignore 1, 2 and 3, both on their own or as to their credibility as regards delivering 4.

With a presidential election, which is a choice of a particular person, which one is best suited to be the president, the personal, 2 and 3 are particularly critical.

When it comes to Mr Trump, unusually, everything one has seen of him, indeed how he has deliberately chosen to present himself, indicates that he fails so seriously on all four that so far as I can see, it is impossible to imagine how anyone could choose to vote for him for motivations that are anything other than morally reprehensible.

As I've said elsewhere on these boards, the only exception I can think of is for those who are personally obliged to vote for him by their duties of family loyalty .

It is particularly ethically incomprehensible that with a choice between one candidate who appears to have been evasive about a few things and another who seems to have cut themselves loose from any relationship at all with telling the truth, anyone should choose the latter.

[ 21. November 2016, 19:48: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Enoch:
I find it hard to believe that if you knew the thousands upon thousands of Americans whose lives have been screwed by the Establishment, you would conclude that there desperate attempt to get someone who would bring change, was done out of base motives.

That they have made the miscalculation of their lives, may well be true, but you have conceded that mistakes are not sinful.

The whole situation sucks for many. So many people who should have known better you learn how to feel some form of shame, including both main candidates. But not all the Trump voters, imo at least.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:

He didn't win just because a sizeable minority is racist. I simply don't accept that half of America is either racist or sexist.

Yeah, I do. Maybe not half but a lot more than most would like to admit. Racism isn't just "kill them!", it is a spectrum from virulent hate down to vague unease.

quote:

He didn't just win because of the white male vote.

They were the major component to his victory.

quote:

He won because women voted for him and ethnic minority groups voted for him, not just in small amounts but in significant numbers even though he offended almost all of them.

You have numbers for this? Women do seem to have been a significant factor, heaven help us, but this link suggests minorities not so much.

quote:
I think ethics played a much bigger role than we want to accept.

To consider Trump ethical is to not know anything about him.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I never realised that voting had anything to do with ethics. Isn't the whole point of secret voting to promote a private act of un-checked self-interest?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Kwesi--

No, it's to keep angry neighbors, who voted differently, from accosting you.
[Biased]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

There are some circumstances where voting is itself a sin and that there are no sinless options.

If we're following the principle of non co-operation with evil, we might vote for the least-worst candidate. But then we might still have to live with the fact that we've voted "worse" and that the candidate if he/she wins will then spend the mandate we've lent them in whatever way they feel like (which might be fundamentally against our own beliefs and interests). That might therefore be considered a sin.

If we're being following the principle of pragmatism, we might try kicking the issue down the road. There is the famous story of Bonhoeffer and the Nazi salute - he saluted to avoid giving the authorities an excuse to arrest him in that particular moment. So that might mean temporarily supporting a candidate to plot his ultimate destruction. That might also be considered a sin.

If we're following the principle of strict accountability, we might vote only for the candidates we honestly agree with. Who might be a third-party (or minority party) who has no hope of winning. In doing so, we might stop the least-worst candidate from winning, and we might have contributed to the victory of the most-worse candidate. This might also be considered a sin.

Or we might think that strict accountability means that we'll not co-operate at all with voting as "whoever I vote for, politicians always win". In one sense we might consider this a "sinless" option because we've not co-operated in the corrupted system, but then of course we might also have assisted in the most-worst candidate getting elected. This might also be considered a sin.

There are no sinless options.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Mr Cheesy:

quote:
There are no sinless options.

I don't agree but of course we get into definitions of sin. I do not think you can judge the morality of an action by its consequences where there is reasonable doubt that those consequences will follow.

The degree of doubt is key here, and I've never read a good analysis of the issue. I'd like to. For example, apart from it being illegal, most people would agree that driving a car whilst as pissed as a fart, is immoral because the consequence of harm to others is foreseeable. Despite the fact that I have many times been in a car where the driver was totally pissed and nothing bad has ever happened.

So if you take the option of not voting, then I do not think it is reasonably clear that the outcome would be the worst. Both on the grounds that I'm not sure Trump was clearly the worst, and the general consensus that he would lose was sufficiently strong, that a person could reasonably take the view that abstaining would not lead to Pres. T.

Also, when a situation is complex, due allowance must be made for invincible ignorance. To me, the only things crystal clear about Trump (as with Farage in the UK) is he is anti-liberal, insensitive to what others think and totally lacking in respect to those who disagree with him, and civilized society in general (the two probably being the same).

Oh, and he hasn't a fucking clue about politics. But for some people that's not an unqualified evil.

As for abuse of women, moral illiteracy financial dodginess, he's in good (?) company.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Enoch:
I find it hard to believe that if you knew the thousands upon thousands of Americans whose lives have been screwed by the Establishment, you would conclude that there desperate attempt to get someone who would bring change, was done out of base motives.

That they have made the miscalculation of their lives, may well be true, but you have conceded that mistakes are not sinful.

The whole situation sucks for many. So many people who should have known better you learn how to feel some form of shame, including both main candidates. But not all the Trump voters, imo at least.

No. I'm sorry Anteater. I hear what you say, but I'm not having that. It's patronising. It's condescending. It's a version of 'they can't help it' or 'they don't know any better'. It's making excuses for 'the woman ... she gave me of the tree, and I did eat'. It's accepting as legitimate, the argument that it's her fault that I molested her because she shouldn't have been wearing such a short skirt.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't agree but of course we get into definitions of sin. I do not think you can judge the morality of an action by its consequences where there is reasonable doubt that those consequences will follow.

The degree of doubt is key here, and I've never read a good analysis of the issue. I'd like to. For example, apart from it being illegal, most people would agree that driving a car whilst as pissed as a fart, is immoral because the consequence of harm to others is foreseeable. Despite the fact that I have many times been in a car where the driver was totally pissed and nothing bad has ever happened.

Well I suppose the problem here is whether you understand "sin" to relate to individual actions as well as whether you consider it to only be a problem if there is a negative result (eg you're caught drunk driving).

Whereas I tend to view sin as a systematic thing, a corruption which infects actions. Drunk driving isn't just a problem if you're caught, it is the result of sticky web of brokenness.

For me it isn't just about consequences or results. If I cheat on my wife, I've still cheated even if she doesn't ever find out.

And I'm not saying I'm sinless at all, I'm as corrupted as everyone else. I just don't accept that it is as easy as pointing to particular choices as being "sinful" whereas other options would have been "holy". I think it is highly likely that almost all options in many aspects of life are all sinful. The question then is how we're supposed to make moral decisions when all the options are corrupted.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

mr cheesy

quote:
There are some circumstances where voting is itself a sin and that there are no sinless options.

I would say that the act of voting is intrinsically sinful because it is a selfish act in which we are invited to choose in accordance with our individual self-interests. One only has to look at the appeals made by the parties and candidates to recognise that. They know what motivates us.

If follows then that:

mr cheesy

quote:
“The question then is how we're supposed to make moral decisions when all the options are corrupted.”

The corruption, however, is chiefly within ourselves and not in the moral limitations of the choices available.

More generally the quote might refer to the whole area of moral and ethical choice. Yet another reason why, after Wesley, "All need to be saved."

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Kwesi, I thought you were being sarcastic when you said voting was intrinsically unethical, but it seems you were serious.

Don't most politicians, most of the time, persuade us that they will be good for the country, for jobs, for security and all sort of collective goods? They don't suggest they will be good for certain individuals or regions or income bands.

Of course we know that the traditional right wing will favour the rich, and the rich will tend to support them, but both politicians and supporters claim it's good for the economy and the national wealth to cut taxes for the wealthy.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
]I would say that the act of voting is intrinsically sinful because it is a selfish act in which we are invited to choose in accordance with our individual self-interests. One only has to look at the appeals made by the parties and candidates to recognise that. They know what motivates us.

I don't think that follows because it is fairly easy to show that a large number of people do not apparently always vote in their own interests. Indeed, looking away from the immediate US election, there are occasions when people have voted for things that are not directly in their interests such as extending the suffrage. One might argue that such things tended to decrease the power of those who already had it by extending it to others.

Moving back to the present, I think that for example Brexit was a vote in some places for the "greater good" rather than for anyone's individual interests.

quote:
The corruption, however, is chiefly within ourselves and not in the moral limitations of the choices available.

More generally the quote might refer to the whole area of moral and ethical choice. Yet another reason why, after Wesley, "All need to be saved."

I think it is both - for many the choice of candidates and platforms are not enough to encourage voting because (in the words of MLK) there was nothing for which to vote, or nothing on offer which really seemed to offer anything positive to a lot of people.

When we mix in the sins of individualism, the lies, the one-up-on-my-neighbour-itus etc then the whole thing is pretty messed up.

The question I'm left with is whether it has to be like this or whether there is any way to reform it.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

mr cheesy

quote:
The question I'm left with is whether it has to be like this or whether there is any way to reform it.

It's not the "it" that has to be reformed i.e. the manner of voting but the people who take part if one wishes them to be more ethically motivated. The problem is that human beings are largely selfish but have a great capacity for deluding themselves that their actions are virtuous, especially the religious.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Hatless

quote:
Don't most politicians, most of the time, persuade us that they will be good for the country, for jobs, for security and all sort of collective goods? They don't suggest they will be good for certain individuals or regions or income bands.

Of course they do, but the ways in which they propose to achieve those virtuous ends have a habit of being biased towards the interests of themselves, their financial backers, and the kinds of voters who support them. The "good of the country" is usually a matter of "what's good for me."

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

What is fearfully dangerous about voting now is that, even if the politician says something, he may be lying. He may have no intent of actually coming through on his avowal; what he promises may in fact be physically impossible. So it is impossible to make a moral choice; you have no ground to stand on.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

As an inducement to ethical behaviour there is something fundamentally problematical about the secret ballot, which was recognised in the 19 Century by JS Mill, the English social theorist. Mill objected to the introduction of the ballot on the grounds of its secrecy because he regarded voting as a public and not a private act, and as such was something for which the elector should be held publicly accountable. If an individual wished to vote for, say, what many would regard as a morally reprehensible or irresponsible individual or policy then he/she should be prepared to be held accountable. That element of accountability might lead an individual to act more ethically than if it were a matter of private self-interest. Personally, I think he hits the nail on the head regarding the essential selfishness of the secret ballot, but the disadvantages of open voting, whatever their merits, are more than counterbalanced by arguments against its (re)introduction.

JS Mill

quote:
In any political election, even by universal suffrage (and still more obviously in the case of a restricted suffrage), the voter is under an absolute moral obligation to consider the interest of the public, not his private advantage, and give his vote, to the best of his judgment, exactly as he would be bound to do if he were the sole voter, and the election depended upon him alone. This being admitted, it is at least a prima facie consequence that the duty of voting, like any other public duty, should be performed under the eye and criticism of the public; every one of whom has not only an interest in its performance, but a good title to consider himself wronged if it is performed otherwise than honestly and carefully. Undoubtedly neither this nor any other maxim of political morality is absolutely inviolable; it may be overruled by still more cogent considerations. But its weight is such that the cases which admit of a departure from it must be of a strikingly exceptional character.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
mr cheesy
quote:
There are some circumstances where voting is itself a sin and that there are no sinless options.

I would say that the act of voting is intrinsically sinful because it is a selfish act in which we are invited to choose in accordance with our individual self-interests.

That doesn't make it intrinsically sinful. A fair voting system ought to aggregate everybody's personal interests to get the overall result that best reflects everybody's interests.
Just expressing your own interests is not of itself anymore sinful than saying you'd like to go to the indian restaurant rather than the chinese or italian. It becomes sinful when you start trying to overrule what other people want.

That said, there are definite problems with winner-takes-all voting systems which make them not fair. Also they prioritise the needs of people struggling on the breadline no more than the whims of the rich, though usually there are more of the people on the breadline.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Open voting allows for the intimidation of the voter. If a person lived in an area that was heavily against the interests of a particular group, they then could harass a voter who supported those interests.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Hatless
quote:
Don't most politicians, most of the time, persuade us that they will be good for the country, for jobs, for security and all sort of collective goods? They don't suggest they will be good for certain individuals or regions or income bands.
Of course they do, but the ways in which they propose to achieve those virtuous ends have a habit of being biased towards the interests of themselves, their financial backers, and the kinds of voters who support them. The "good of the country" is usually a matter of "what's good for me."

Yes, that's right. It's also something I said in the bit of my post you didn't quote.

But you said

quote:
I would say that the act of voting is intrinsically sinful because it is a selfish act in which we are invited to choose in accordance with our individual self-interests. One only has to look at the appeals made by the parties and candidates to recognise that. They know what motivates us.

I restate my point. The appeals made by parties and candidates do not demonstrate that voting is the exercise of selfishness. On the contrary they show that we at least strive to pretend that it is about seeking the common good.

And the conversations I have with people lead me to think that most people genuinely do consider the common good. I'm sure we are biased and influenced. Not so much by our self interest, but by our tendency to identify with the centre or the margin and our fear of things shifting in the 'wrong' direction.

I believe that humans are naturally co-operative and that we are instinctively generous, and inclined to form relationships and community. The idea that we are selfish individualists strikes me as a convenient bit of right wing propaganda.

[ 22. November 2016, 19:51: Message edited by: hatless ]

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

lilBuddha

I guess the first point you make about almost half of the votes being cast out of 'racist' motives is purely opinion based and something that can't be measured.

I agree the male white vote was Trumps main support basis but he had sufficient support from women and ethnic minorities to win. In fact far more than either the polls expected or the wider public assumed he would receive.

I'm not denying the point to vote for Trump was based on an ethical decision personally. Like many others I cringed at so much of his rhetoric and behaviour. My point was for reasons I've already outlined for some the ethics for voting for Clinton was far worse than the ethics for voting for Trump.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I don't think there is anything intrinsically sinful about acting to further one's own interests. The commandment is to love our neighbour as ourselves, not instead of ourselves.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
lilBuddha

I guess the first point you make about almost half of the votes being cast out of 'racist' motives is purely opinion based and something that can't be measured.

First, that is not what I said. I said racism played a larger part than most people would like to admit. Measurement is difficult because some would not like to admit their racism and because some would not realize they were. Again, racism isn't just hate. For accuracy, there was a lot of xenophobia as well.

quote:

I agree the male white vote was Trumps main support basis but he had sufficient support from women and ethnic minorities to win. In fact far more than either the polls expected or the wider public assumed he would receive.

If you read the link I provided, it wasn't far more minority support. Many more women than makes rational sense, though.

quote:

I'm not denying the point to vote for Trump was based on an ethical decision personally. Like many others I cringed at so much of his rhetoric and behaviour. My point was for reasons I've already outlined for some the ethics for voting for Clinton was far worse than the ethics for voting for Trump.

This next sentence will be harsh, but I feel accurate. It is effectively racist to vote for a racist. Trump isn't casually or coincidentally racist, he made racism and xenophobia a cornerstone of his campaign.
I am not calling you personally a racist, I am commenting on an action not your personal beliefs.
And how is Clinton less ethical than Trump? He fails to pay his bills, he diverted personal debt to a business to avoid personal bankruptcy, etc. he is appointing racists to his cabinet, can't seem to separate personal business from his administration, is hiring a person who has already failed a conflict of interest test as his security advisor....
Still trying to figure out how the Cheeto is at all ethical.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Hatless

quote:
I believe that humans are naturally co-operative and that we are instinctively generous, and inclined to form relationships and community. The idea that we are selfish individualists strikes me as a convenient bit of right wing propaganda.

Clearly, human beings have a capacity for co-operation, which might be regarded as natural. Darwinian biologists, however, have claimed to detect a “selfish gene” as having been essential to the process of evolution, and is genetically embedded in the human psyche. The trick is to develop institutions which optimise the positives and minimise the negatives of our selfish natures. The argument here is that the secret ballot enhances the selfish aspects of voting behaviour. This is not an ideological position of the right but a theoretically reasoned argument empirically supported. I don’t see any better solution to the problem. We just have to live with it with our eyes open.

As to humans being instinctively generous, the question is how well we act on those sentiments. As the apostle exasperatedly observed: “I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:19) Quite so.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is fearfully dangerous about voting now is that, even if the politician says something, he may be lying. He may have no intent of actually coming through on his avowal; what he promises may in fact be physically impossible. So it is impossible to make a moral choice; you have no ground to stand on.

Er...this is news?
[Confused]

Remember the old "how do you know politicians are lying? Their lips are moving!" joke? (From the '70s, IIRC.) I wouldn't necessarily go *quite* that far, all the time, about every politician. But there are grounds for it.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Politicians lie because we wouldn't vote for them if they told the truth. The fault, dear Brutus, lies chiefly in ourselves.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Kwesi said

quote:
Darwinian biologists, however, have claimed to detect a “selfish gene” as having been essential to the process of evolution, and is genetically embedded in the human psyche.

Selfish gene was Dawkins' term, and it didn't apply to a particular gene, as if a gene could make people selfish (or brave or witty or fond of jazz), but to all genes. Dawkins suggested that actual organisms are best viewed as the means by which genes propagate themselves. All genes are selfish, was his point, not that there is a gene that makes us selfish.

Genetically embedded in the human psyche? That's theology, not science; alt-right theology.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Polly--

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
My point was for reasons I've already outlined for some the ethics for voting for Clinton was far worse than the ethics for voting for Trump.

I think that could happen, on either side of any election, if the voter's ethics are focused on one or two issues--if those issues are so important to the voter that nothing else matters. Abortion, the environment, civil rights of any kind, minimum wage, prayer in schools, strengthening Social Security, immigration. (And any side of those issues can be considered an ethical choice, depending on the voter.)

Problem is, politicians generally have to deal with *lots* of issues, and ideally have certain basic knowledge and skills. So someone might have the desired view on an issue, but have very little experience and understanding of the lives and challenges of everyday people who aren't rich. And that's most Americans.

So do you pick someone who has the desired view, and hope they will know/learn enough to do the rest of their job? Or pick someone who has all-around experience, and try to educate them about your desired view?

Etc.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Politicians lie because we wouldn't vote for them if they told the truth. The fault, dear Brutus, lies chiefly in ourselves.

Very true. [Disappointed]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Politicians lie because we wouldn't vote for them if they told the truth. The fault, dear Brutus, lies chiefly in ourselves.

We, collectively, get the government we deserve. The problem is some of us get more than we deserve or voted for.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Don't most politicians, most of the time, persuade us that they will be good for the country, for jobs, for security and all sort of collective goods? They don't suggest they will be good for certain individuals or regions or income bands.

I suppose it could be said that politicians are appealing to the selfish interests of as many people as they can at once, so as to get as many votes as possible. In which case "good for the country" actually means "good for as many people in the country as we can make it" - or, "good for you" (where 'you' is a large number of individual voters).

I don't think it's true that most voters cast their vote purely on the basis of their personal, selfish interests. For a start, many will vote according to the interests of a small community - they may vote against their personal interests if that would benefit their children or other close relatives, or maybe their neighbourhood or town, for example. Others will vote because they believe that the good of others is important (so, for example, you get people in good health with private insurance voting to support public health services they don't need because it's good for people to be healthy - although that may be in recognition that healthy people are more economically productive and so benefit everyone). And, there are people who are geniuinely altruistic and vote for the benefit of others at potentially quite considerable expense to themselves.

On top of that you get a lot of people who vote against their best interests simply because they have been convinced/conned (delete as appropriate depending on your views of politicians and the media) into believing that that is a vote in their interests.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
This next sentence will be harsh, but I feel accurate. It is effectively racist to vote for a racist. Trump isn't casually or coincidentally racist, he made racism and xenophobia a cornerstone of his campaign.
I am not calling you personally a racist, I am commenting on an action not your personal beliefs.
And how is Clinton less ethical than Trump? He fails to pay his bills, he diverted personal debt to a business to avoid personal bankruptcy, etc. he is appointing racists to his cabinet, can't seem to separate personal business from his administration, is hiring a person who has already failed a conflict of interest test as his security advisor....
Still trying to figure out how the Cheeto is at all ethical.

My whole point is not that I disagree with you about anything you have said about Trump but that for many people who voted they perceived (rightly or wrongly) Clinton to be far more corrupt. Her perceived crimes to be far more dangerous than Trump's behaviour and rhetoric.

I could accept that for those people they voted predominantly out of their ethical framework selecting the lesser of two evils rather than out of a mindset fuelled by prejudice.

I don't agree with such a view but can see in the voting patterns that along with the main support block of white males, women voted for him and what was significant was that numbers although statistical small of different ethnicity groups voted for Trump to win. This is all he required regardless of whether the statistics show. It was enough.

Ps

I got the point you weren't levelling a 'racist accusation at me'. Thank you.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Polly--

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
My point was for reasons I've already outlined for some the ethics for voting for Clinton was far worse than the ethics for voting for Trump.
I think that could happen, on either side of any election, if the voter's ethics are focused on one or two issues--if those issues are so important to the voter that nothing else matters. Abortion, the environment, civil rights of any kind, minimum wage, prayer in schools, strengthening Social Security, immigration. (And any side of those issues can be considered an ethical choice, depending on the voter.)

Problem is, politicians generally have to deal with *lots* of issues, and ideally have certain basic knowledge and skills. So someone might have the desired view on an issue, but have very little experience and understanding of the lives and challenges of everyday people who aren't rich. And that's most Americans.

So do you pick someone who has the desired view, and hope they will know/learn enough to do the rest of their job? Or pick someone who has all-around experience, and try to educate them about your desired view?

Etc.

I think what was also really evident in this election was that we saw something new and not in a good way. Traditionally people would be encouraged to vote on policies but there was a severe lack of anything substantial.

In addition a huge questions arose about the behaviour of both candidates being open to a new (low) level of personal attack against each other, their supporters and anyone else who they disagreed with. And yet the candidate (Trump) who was not in the slightest bit ashamed of his behaviour even when it shocked some of his most ardent supporters this wasn't enough to convince the voters to look elsewhere.

The bigger question is how the system moves on and learns. Can future candidates say anything they like (in a 'Post truth' age) without repercussions? How does society then deal with the fallout that inflames pre-existing tensions in communities?

In a country where religion is used in a highly emotive way how do those who desire another way stand and be heard?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Trump played to fear and that works extremely well even when their is nothing to fear.* He also portrayed himself as an outsider and that worked well.

*Case in point in his very first speech he referenced Mexican immigration despite the fact that it has been on a steady decline and very few commit crimes. That is just one lie.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0