The most recent Presidential election in the United States recently came to a wrap, widely being considered one of the most ridiculous elections of all time. When it was announced that the two Presidential finalists were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, people all around the world were shocked. With Donald Trump having no experience in politics, and Hillary Clinton previously having been in a political position, but landing herself in hot water for deleting thousands of emails, it seemed that America was almost certainly doomed. With the controversial nature of the candidates, many America citizens decided to remove themselves from the equation completely by not voting at all. If I was an American citizen, I would have done the same thing. The decision to not vote, while still reserving the right to do so, might be frowned upon. Kantian Absolutism and Utilitarianism are two moral theories that will be put to the test in determining whether or not voting should be a moral obligation. I will try to argue that it should not be an obligation to cast a ballot in a presidential election, with the support of the two theories listed above.
…show more content…
For starters, let’s talk about Utilitarianism. From what I understand, Utilitarianism is the idea to act in ways that promote the most happiness, and the least unhappiness. Utilitarian’s believe that we are allowed, if not required, to take all steps necessary to promote overall happiness. With that being said, no one person is more important than the next. The happiness of every person is weighed equally. A utilitarian has a complex breakdown on what and how actions are considered “right”. A “right” action is one that produces good. An action that produces good is one that produces happiness, which ultimately produces pleasure. If an action produces more happiness than unhappiness, then it is defensible by Utilitarianism. So with all that being said, how would Utilitarianism view the morality of voting? For starters, the crux of Utilitarianisms argument is to act in ways that promote the most happiness. Many people may have felt that they would be losing, regardless of who they voted for in the election. Voting for the lesser of two evils wasn’t something that that millions of Americans didn’t do this election. It wouldn’t make someone happy knowing that they contributed to the election of an undesirable president, that’s for sure. So by voting regardless of the candidates would be against Utilitarian beliefs. A counter argument to that statement could be, “Why not vote for a third party candidate, rather than simply not voting at all?” Although, that would resolve the issue of not voting, it wouldn’t make the voter feel “happy”. In a presidential election, the two finalists are obviously the front runners, although you can vote for others, but with the majority of the population focused on the finalists, the third party representatives don’t get much, if any exposure. Many people feel that voting for a third party candidate is exactly the same as not voting at all, due to the fact that even the closest third party runner-up is still millions and millions votes away from even coming close to being a runner-up to the eventual winner of the election. With that being said, would it make you happy to go cast a ballot for a third party candidate, knowing that your vote is absolutely meaningless? I think not. Utilitarianism wouldn’t say that voting is a moral obligation, because in the case of this most recent Presidential election, the outcome was undesirable, no matter what way you went about it. Now let’s take a look at Kantian Absolutism as a whole, and also how it assess the morality of voting. Kantian Absolutism is an interesting moral theory. It is based on the idea that our behaviors be guided by universal laws, which are moral rules that have no exceptions. Kant makes it clear that you shouldn’t take action, or do something that you wouldn’t want to become universal law. For example, if someone steals a car, they are thereby saying that they believe that car theft should be a universal law. It doesn’t do us any good to accept reasons sometimes, but not all the time, and for those “reasons” to apply to some people, but
For starters, let’s talk about Utilitarianism. From what I understand, Utilitarianism is the idea to act in ways that promote the most happiness, and the least unhappiness. Utilitarian’s believe that we are allowed, if not required, to take all steps necessary to promote overall happiness. With that being said, no one person is more important than the next. The happiness of every person is weighed equally. A utilitarian has a complex breakdown on what and how actions are considered “right”. A “right” action is one that produces good. An action that produces good is one that produces happiness, which ultimately produces pleasure. If an action produces more happiness than unhappiness, then it is defensible by Utilitarianism. So with all that being said, how would Utilitarianism view the morality of voting? For starters, the crux of Utilitarianisms argument is to act in ways that promote the most happiness. Many people may have felt that they would be losing, regardless of who they voted for in the election. Voting for the lesser of two evils wasn’t something that that millions of Americans didn’t do this election. It wouldn’t make someone happy knowing that they contributed to the election of an undesirable president, that’s for sure. So by voting regardless of the candidates would be against Utilitarian beliefs. A counter argument to that statement could be, “Why not vote for a third party candidate, rather than simply not voting at all?” Although, that would resolve the issue of not voting, it wouldn’t make the voter feel “happy”. In a presidential election, the two finalists are obviously the front runners, although you can vote for others, but with the majority of the population focused on the finalists, the third party representatives don’t get much, if any exposure. Many people feel that voting for a third party candidate is exactly the same as not voting at all, due to the fact that even the closest third party runner-up is still millions and millions votes away from even coming close to being a runner-up to the eventual winner of the election. With that being said, would it make you happy to go cast a ballot for a third party candidate, knowing that your vote is absolutely meaningless? I think not. Utilitarianism wouldn’t say that voting is a moral obligation, because in the case of this most recent Presidential election, the outcome was undesirable, no matter what way you went about it. Now let’s take a look at Kantian Absolutism as a whole, and also how it assess the morality of voting. Kantian Absolutism is an interesting moral theory. It is based on the idea that our behaviors be guided by universal laws, which are moral rules that have no exceptions. Kant makes it clear that you shouldn’t take action, or do something that you wouldn’t want to become universal law. For example, if someone steals a car, they are thereby saying that they believe that car theft should be a universal law. It doesn’t do us any good to accept reasons sometimes, but not all the time, and for those “reasons” to apply to some people, but