PHILOSOPHY - DEMOCRACY 12: Do You Have a Duty to Vote?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 เม.ย. 2023
- In this Wireless Philosophy video, Geoff Pynn (Elgin Community College) examines some arguments around the question of whether democratic citizens have a duty to vote. As the odds of a single citizen casting the determining vote are so low, and your resources could be better spent elsewhere, why should you even bother voting at all? Are there ethical reasons to vote, even if your vote alone almost certainly won’t make a difference?
View our Democracy learning module and other videos in this series here: www.wi-phi.com
Following this line of reasoning, that we ought to vote so as to not be complicit in injustice, what happens when we are asked to vote for the "lesser of two evils?" Suppose we have two candidates running against each other, both of whom endorse policies that we oppose. We are frequently asked to do something of a cost-benefit analysis with the presumed notion that, upon analysis, one candidate would come out as, at the very least, a lower net loss than the other. In this case, it is often argued, we should cast a vote for the candidate that would harm society less, a less harm is better than more harm. But suppose that this calculus that we perform does not show such glowing results - in a position where we believe that both candidates will create near equal harm and near equal benefit, what are we to do then? The free-loader argument doesn't really apply because both options were equally poor, so we feel like we lost regardless. Is it better in these circumstances to engage in a "protest vote" for a candidate who surely won't win, though we at least see their hypothetical winning status as one that would be favorable? Or does voting simply lose its alleged moral obligation since it has a near 0 chance of producing favorable results?
Thoughts, anyone?
We need a voting system that that resolves that dilemma. I don't think that it is possible to resolve it on your own. It is basically a trolley dilemma but with 5 people on each side. We need to engage in changing the system. And it that case i think that not voting also has some power. Peopüle activly look and see how many people did not vote. Not voting means to the parties that there are still votes to get. Actually i think we should implement a way of being able to vote "i was there to vote but i choose none", so that it is easier to differentiate between lazyness and simply "both are bad, i can't decide"
Yes by not voting you can adopt the moral high ground when it all goes belly up by saying "Well it had nothing to do with me because I didn't vote!"
So is the answer a "yes" or a "no"? Do we actually have a "duty", or are we merely waiting to be guilt-trip into having one whenever we don't feel like we have one?
And when does complicity "starts" or "stops"? Suppose if you did in fact voted, but the end results turn out to be worse, is that still complicity to an extent? Exactly how much things can you control, or how much degree of control do you actually have over the act of voting?
And if "complicity" is a thing, why only stop at voting? Don't any of our actions or inactions in society to some extent, has certain effects on society itself? Why aren't we technically complicit in every aspects in life, including the destruction that comes from hurricanes and other natural disasters that are currently happening around the world simply because we didn't do enough to remove our "complicity" towards our efforts to combat climate change?
Do Not Vote. Do not participate in this form of dysfunctional democracy. This form of speculative bullshit which is voting. Also voting every 4 years for some random politician
has no consequence to our real lives and problems. Our only duty is then to dismantle and overthrow all forms of centralized power. There is NO DUTY to vote.
F**K this bullshit in essence.
Yeah, the complicity argument is a slippery slope argument and therefore rather fallacious.
@@SlimThrull Thats the fallacy fallacy. Just because an argument contains a fallacy it does not make the argument void. Simply pointing out fallacies is not enough.
We are connected to this world. Our actions matter and whether your are complicit or not is something we can't decide for everything. Currently we struggle a lot with dealing with "hyperobjects" such as climate change. The matter is so complex that it is fairly easy to ignore your duty, to ignore your involvment. Also the task is so big and what to do for eahc individual is so uncertain that sometimes you don't know if it was the right thing to do. Sometime you don't even know if you acted according to your best knowledge/capacity. Thats why i think it is necesary to declare it a duty out of a positive feeling and not to define it as avoiding complicity out of a negative feeling. Or maybe its both....
Very well stated.
Though I must note that as an Australian you are preaching to the choir, though I hope it sways just one citizen in a country where voting is not mandated (well turning up to vote is mandated anyway)
Do Not Vote. Do not participate in this form of dysfunctional democracy. This form of speculative bullshit which is voting. Also voting every 4 years for some random politician
has no consequence to our real lives and problems. Our only duty is then to dismantle and overthrow all forms of centralized power. There is NO DUTY to vote.
F**K this bullshit in essence.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Uhuh.
For someone who supposedly has a Doctorate, you have certainly shown you know how to copy & paste, but not so much in how to critically debate or even contribute in a nominal form to any conversation of import.
Go spam elsewhere
No
Do Not Vote. Do not participate in this form of dysfunctional democracy. This form of speculative bullshit which is voting. Also voting every 4 years for some random politician
has no consequence to our real lives and problems. Our only duty is then to dismantle and overthrow all forms of centralized power. There is NO DUTY to vote.
F**K this bullshit in essence.
Voting is not a duty because our elected officials are bought by lobbyists before elections. Google and celebrities and corporations advertise voting because they want us to have faith that we’re in control of the government when we’re not.