Political ethics question

[J_V]

Is it ethical, in a humanitarian sense, to vote in a completely self-serving manner?

EG:
If you are rich, is that enough reason to vote for the most conservative Republican candidate?

If you are on welfare, is that enough reason to vote democratic?

Are you not obliged to subscribe to something a tad more utilitarian?

I await your (straightforward) answers.

[Wake up CALL]

If not self serving why would you even bother to vote? Only liberals act like they care about helping others when all they really want is to control others. Even their facade of non self serving acts are in fact self serving.

Vote early, vote often, vote selflishly! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[superleeds]

You should vote for the person/party whom you feel will improve your overall quality of life. And not just as an immediate fix but as a long term propersition. If you don't, you probably cheat at patience and therefore have no ethics /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't, you probably cheat at patience and therefore have no ethics /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have patience in the US. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are rich, is that enough reason to vote for the most conservative Republican candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without question almost all the time in the U.S. If you as an individual feel the need to help the plight of the disenfranchised do it through a contribution to the appropriate charity or set up your own foundation. Warren Buffet is leaving all his money to charity when he dies and as I've posted before his children lead ordinary for the most part middle class existence. Bill Gates has set up his own foundation and contributed over $17 billion to it. Why not direct the money to the causes that you feel are worthwhile than giving it away in taxes to the government to do whatever they want to do with it?

[ QUOTE ]
If you are on welfare, is that enough reason to vote democratic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really have much choice? If you're faced with the prospect of someone increasing your government handout and you're dependent on that handout and the choice is between someone who wants to increase your handout and someone who wants to maintain it or decrease it who are you going to vote for?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you not obliged to subscribe to something a tad more utilitarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes if there was a clear cut choice between someone wanted to restrict your freedom drastically and someone who only wanted to take money out of your pocket then yes I'd vote for the guy who wanted to take money out of my pocket. Sans that choice I dont' think so. You could say that perhaps foreign policy considerations might apply and national defense considerations might apply but to me they have something to do with your well being.

[J_V]

I like your answer, adios. Somehow, you never let me down.

One question though, if you everyone is voting self-servingly, why do people mask it? Why are people ashamed to say, "I'm voting Republican because I'm loaded"?

Also, you would think issues like stem-cell research or AIDS funding would take a back burner (maybe they do, I hardly follow mainstream politics) to issues more relevant to Americans if everyone voted self-servingly.

Growing up, I always thought people voted to do the greatest good for the greatest many. The older I get, the less I feel that anyone is aiming for any type of fairness or equality. Seems sort've depressing and selfish to vote solely for one's own benefit.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The is precisely zero immorality in self-interest as long as you don't initiate force or fraud against others.

[Glenn]

"Seems sort've depressing and selfish to vote solely for one's own benefit."

WUSS!

[Philuva]

This supposes that money is the most important decision factor in voting. Of course everyone votes selfishly. To me, I would like a small gov't and pay less taxes, but social issues are more important to me. Therefore I would never vote for a Republican because of their alliance with the Christian Right. I am voting selfishly, or what is in my best interest, it just happens that money is not my first priority.

As an aside, can we please put to rest the idea that Republicans are for small gov'ts?

[Dominic]

I'm not sure who first espoused this theory, but I'm sure somebody out there will enlighten me:

it goes like this:

If everyone acts in a purely self-serving manner (inlcluding voting), then that IS best for the common good, in the long run.

Problem is, I don't remember WHY that's the case...

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[The Dude]

The answer to your question is actually a lot more complex than one might think. You could actually make an entire college career out of studying the various ethical systems, and the implications of each.

Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, Kantian Ethics, Situational Ethics, Virtue Ethics, and several others would all tell you to vote using different frameworks. Ironically, it's fairly easy to shoot holes through any one of them - that is, each person needs to find some sort of a balance of two or more systems.

For example: *disclaimer at bottom of post*
Utilitarianism (the highest good for the highest number of people) might lead you to allow extreme medical testing on mentally handicapped people - after all, millions of people will benefit from the research. However, we all agree that we have certain individual rights that the needs of the many cannot outweigh.
Ethical Egoism (every individual acts in self-interest) might lead you to encourage harsh child labor overseas, because that's what benefits us, and it's highly unlikely we'll see any direct reprocussions from the act. However, we all agree that we ought to be at least somewhat concerned for the interest of foreign laborers (to what degree is highly debatable) - sacraficing at least part of our best interest for thiers.
Situational Ethics (the only thing intrinsically good in this world is love) can give a strong foundation of motive, but fails in many ways to provide any real practical framework for life. Welfare is a good example. People who subscribe to this system are on both sides of the fence - some in favor of keeping the system to help those in need, and some in favor of dumping it, saying it hurts them more in the long run that it helps, on average.

I could rattle off examples for each, but I think you guys get the idea. A great book that touches on all these systems (I say 'touches' because you will find books upon books that dive into every fathomable circumstance for any specific system) is Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics by Steve Wilkens. That book covers all the depth the average person needs to get a good handle on things. This page (http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/bi/1992/ethical_systems.html) provides a little more framework than I have, but I'm sure you can find better if you're willing to wade through the results of a google search for 'ethical sytems.'

Of all the philosophy I took in school, ethical systems was the only thing I felt was worthwile. And yet I have continued to study this outside of class. I highly recommend everyone to at least read a book similar to the one I listed, it is more than worthwile.

*** I have grossly simplified the implications of these systems, and anybody who subscribes to one of these would be able to argue my examples with decent success. I threw them up there very quickly (and sloppily) merely to give a grasp of the jist of each one.

[nothumb]

This theory is sort of the driving idea of social darwinism and of some laissez-faire ethics. Basically, the idea is that a lot of the value or potential in man comes from his inherent desire to take initiative, create wealth and comfort for himself, and sow his seed in a fertile soil or what have you. In other words, the notion of 'greed' or self-interest is not something you need to feel some moral repulsion towards, or something that should be resented by those unable to impose their will, but rather a generative and essential force that lies at the root of many great achievements in civilization. Where it ties in particularly well to Darwinism is the notion of competition and 'survival of the fittest' - that those who prevail in the wild - or, in capitalism, the market - are doing so by virtue of their greater capacity to produce and achieve, and their prevalence increases the quality of human stock. The classic phrase representative of optimism in the free global market is, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

All boats that stay afloat, anyway. Rather than attack this mindset (because it's really a philosophical disposition, almost a question of personality) I will give a rather crude analogy that illustrates where the disagreement lies. To compare this triumphalist view of capitalism or self interest to the natural world and the Darwinistic ideal (and, it must be said, with capitalism providing the greatest explosion of overall wealth the world has ever seen, this triumphalism is at times hard to dispute) it is fair to remind readers that the Darwinian eco-system is not stable, nor is it in constant equilibrium. In a very simple example, when a population of deer is left unchecked it is likely to explode, as all the deer do what they prefer, in their own interest - eat good and make little deer that look like you. (Although, really, don't they all look pretty damn similar?) But, at some point, the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and many deer too weak or stupid to escape predators, fight off disease or find food will die.

The less you are bothered by this scenario, and, to an extent, an extrapolation of this scenario to human terms in a variety of more nuanced and ethically complex situations, the more likely you are to be disposed towards this notion of 'enlightened self-interest.' It is worth pointing out that, in America, one needs merely to be comfortable with the idea, as actually witnessing the cruel fate of the weak is not a likely obligation.

Again, this is a very crude framing of the notion but I think it plays, for the purposes of discussion. I don't mean to imply that people who think in this way are cruel or callous; the reality of the natural world is unavoidable and something that must be confronted. I think humans fit in to the natural world more than we'd like to see.

NT

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone acts in a purely self-serving manner (inlcluding voting), then that IS best for the common good, in the long run.

Problem is, I don't remember WHY that's the case...

[/ QUOTE ]
Problem is, that's not true. Delve further into ethical theories and you'll find that.

[RPatterson]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it ethical, in a humanitarian sense, to vote in a completely self-serving manner?

EG:
If you are rich, is that enough reason to vote for the most conservative Republican candidate?

If you are on welfare, is that enough reason to vote democratic?

Are you not obliged to subscribe to something a tad more utilitarian?

I await your (straightforward) answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everyone voted for their best interests, then the majority of people's best interests would be served.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone voted for their best interests, then the majority of people's best interests would be served.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement assumes all of the following things:

1. That people understand what is in their best interest.
2. That, in a representative democracy, there is a candidate which represents even the majority of each person's interests and will faithfully pursue them if elected.
3. That, in a multiple-party system, the winning party will garner a majority of the votes and not a plurality, or that a coalition government will emerge that represents the interests of a majority of people.
4. That politicians will succeed in carrying out their mandate if they seek to do so faithfully.

I think the likelihood of even 2 of these 4 being true in our country is very, very low.

NT

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you would think issues like stem-cell research or AIDS funding would take a back burner (maybe they do, I hardly follow mainstream politics) to issues more relevant to Americans if everyone voted self-servingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you're saying and yeah those kind of issues could. For instance if one candidate would support AIDS funding and it would somehow eliminate AIDS from the planet but I would pay more taxes and the other candidate didn't give a rats ass about AIDS but would lower my taxes yeah I'd vote to raise my taxes. Also after I posted I thought of environmental issues as well.

[riverflush]

Commentary: nothumb's got some very coherent and rational thoughts on this subject...


As a capitalist with an uncomprisingly skeptical Kantianism, I vote my own personal self-interest because I believe unfettered freedom (capitalism) is the best order - because it is a natural system of spontaneous order that needs no hand of guidance. Attempts by cultures to "re-order" human behavior in ways that - theoretically - create a more fair society have always failed to create said utopia - at every single point in human history. Our current system is failing (do you realize it?). Need examples? Social Security, Medicare, State-funded education, federally-funded recycling, etc. etc.

Those of us who believe in capitalism as humanitarianism MUST vote in our own rational self-interest, because we have witnessed (and are witnessing) the terrible consequences of socialism, and to a lesser extent, Keynesian economics.

Living in the current U.S. (a great country, mind you), it is difficult for a true capitalist to vote in any election. Our quasi-democracy - a republic - has morphed into a half-free/half-welfare mess where the two major parties have both accepted Keynesian economics of government spending as stimulus. Those of us from the Hayek school are left without a home...merely relegated to tugging and pulling and willing the big government machine in our direction, settling for small wins here and there.

The good news for us is that advancements in technology and communication (internet) are making governments less and less relevant, and in some instances, obsolete.

Why "majority-rules" democracy is a problem:

[ QUOTE ]
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities - and the smallest minority on earth is the individual." -- Ayn Rand

[/ QUOTE ]

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
All boats that stay afloat, anyway. Rather than attack this mindset (because it's really a philosophical disposition, almost a question of personality) I will give a rather crude analogy that illustrates where the disagreement lies. To compare this triumphalist view of capitalism or self interest to the natural world and the Darwinistic ideal (and, it must be said, with capitalism providing the greatest explosion of overall wealth the world has ever seen, this triumphalism is at times hard to dispute) it is fair to remind readers that the Darwinian eco-system is not stable, nor is it in constant equilibrium. In a very simple example, when a population of deer is left unchecked it is likely to explode, as all the deer do what they prefer, in their own interest - eat good and make little deer that look like you. (Although, really, don't they all look pretty damn similar?) But, at some point, the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and many deer too weak or stupid to escape predators, fight off disease or find food will die.

The less you are bothered by this scenario, and, to an extent, an extrapolation of this scenario to human terms in a variety of more nuanced and ethically complex situations, the more likely you are to be disposed towards this notion of 'enlightened self-interest.' It is worth pointing out that, in America, one needs merely to be comfortable with the idea, as actually witnessing the cruel fate of the weak is not a likely obligation.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right on target nothumb, although it is a somewhat crude analogy...I went back and reread this passage and I have some thoughts.

We're ok with the "too many deer" problem, and the subsequent harshness of some deer not being able to find food, etc. It's natural...and the good comes with the bad. Why are we ok with it in human terms? Because attempts to make the situation more palatable always (seriously, always) ends up killing more and causing more strife in the end. Attempting to engineer problems out of human behavior inevitably ends up creating more new problems - that are often worse than the initial situation. Just one example of the 20th Century - communism - ended up killing over 100 million people, all in the name of order and equality. But because it was always a "just cause," the ends justified the means.

There will always be those that don't make it, no matter how hard we try to prevent it as a society. There will always be poor, sick, weak, unlucky, lazy, and "whatever" people on this earth. Where we part ways is that capitalists believe you can do more for these people by empowering the individual to help 1-on-1, and that state-mandated help always ends up creating more poor, more sick, and more hungry. History bears out this argument.

Also, you said: "It is worth pointing out that, in America, one needs merely to be comfortable with the idea, as actually witnessing the cruel fate of the weak is not a likely obligation."

Sure. That's true. But I believe actually growing up in an economically impoverished area (Lake Co. Indiana - steel town Gary) made me that much more of a capitalist, because I saw attempts to engineer fairness and equality. I saw welfare first hand since the day I was born. I was raised in union politics, high-taxes, and GroupThink...and all it accomplished was to make Lake Co. a massive failure. I saw "the deer" with my own eyes; and I came out on the other side. You see, I don't see more state help as the solution to the problem, I see it as the problem. I see it that way because I lived in it.

[J_V]

Awesome stuff. I will definitely pick up a copy of that book.

I can't seem to talk politics without reverting back to very primal philosophical questions.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone acts in a purely self-serving manner (inlcluding voting), then that IS best for the common good, in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this to be true and even if it was in the most theoretical sense, it's certainly not practical.

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]

One question though, if you everyone is voting self-servingly, why do people mask it? Why are people ashamed to say, "I'm voting Republican because I'm loaded"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a very common, but false, perception that the rich people are all Republicans.

Indeed, more truly wealthy people are Democrats, and by qutie a large margin.

CEO's and Corporate Executive types of big companies like a very highly regulated economy. Such regulations ensures their continued positions of wealth and influence. Whereas a less regulated economy will tend to provide a breeding ground for smaller companies that are usually more mobile in the market place and therefore a serious threat to larger corporations. Thus they tend to be democrats, as democrats more closely align with their market philosophy.

Almost all of the New England old-money rich are Democrats.

Most lawyers are Democrats. They want a party who is for large bodies of complex laws and against torte reforms.

Many Doctors are Democrats, at least until recently. Medicare and Medicaide were initially great benefits to physicians pocket books, and they tended to support those programs.

Most elderly are Democrats . . . and while many elderly are poor, it's also true that a huge number of the elderly own substantial property and investments, and properly qualify as "the rich."

The members of the "rich" who tend to be Republicans are not the corporate types riding around in Limos and thumbing their noses at the poor. Rather, they tend to be small business entrepeneurs who became rich after significant personal sacrific to do so.

There are of course, exceptions to these generalizations. But by and large, the "rich" Republicans are really the "millionaire next door" typse, who slaved away 16 hour days building their own small business and finally are seeing the fruits of their labors.

[Diplomat]

...and don't forget compromising individual rights/minority rights.

-Diplomat

[nothumb]

Hey flush,

Interesting response as always. You and I do not actually disagree so much even as we so far appear to. You'll notice that I have not advocated any government program to assist the poor or the disenfranchised because, well, I'm an anarchist, so I don't advocate many government programs.

You and I both believe that individual, or small-scale, mutual aid is most effective, because it is flexible, responsive and local. (At least, that's why I believe it, I'm guessing you do for the same reasons.) My trouble with capitalism (one of my troubles, I should say) is that while many capitalists are happy to describe how private charity achieves its objectives so much more efficiently, you do not hear nearly so much talk about the obligation of those who are able to provide it, or an acknowledgement that providing a modicum of aid is even in the long-term best interests of those in a wealthy position. In other words, charity is, as of now, a tax write-off and a political tool for many of the nation's most prominent capitalists.

I won't make blanket statements to the effect that capitalism itself fundamentally tends away from charity, but I think the capitalist discourse in this country has diverged significantly from that idea.

Your segment about being turned away from unionism by witnessing the failures of a blue-collar town was interesting and enlightening. I would gently remind you, however, that even life in a failing blue-collar town in America is far more comfortable than the average life of people in countries to which capitalism has not been so kind. Again, I won't press the moral charge against capitalism here, but it's something to consider. (In fairness' sake, some of the world's most ambitious capitalists have come from such desperately poor countries, and describe their motives similarly.)

I won't get into the semantics of 'engineering' vs. fostering equality, teaching egalitarian mindsets, etc, because it's another thread and this is a long post already. Suffice it to say that you know how much I value individual decision-making and I think there are a lot of ways we could better prepare ourselves and our children to live in a fair, free world.

NT