Political ethics question

[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 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.