为何没有道德理由不投票,除非您在选举日与Covid-19混为一谈

为何没有道德理由不投票,除非您在选举日与Covid-19混为一谈
投票,正确的做法?
安德鲁·卡瓦列罗-雷诺兹/法新社通过Getty Images

各个方面的政客都恳请美国人去做 民主义务 于3月(2020年XNUMX月XNUMX日)投票。

目前的民意调查显示 大多数有资格投票的人打算投票。 But a chunk of the electorate won't – in 2016, around但是大部分选民不会参加–在XNUMX年左右 100亿潜在选民反对 登记他们的投票。

许多障碍阻碍公民投票,例如不确定如何注册或注册。 无法参加民意测验。 But there is a subset of nonvoters who make a conscious choice not to vote for ethical reasons.但是,有一部分非投票者出于道德原因做出有意识的选择而不投票。

作为一个 教授道德和政治哲学课程的哲学家,我研究了不投票的伦理。

The three most common reasons I hear are: “I don't have enough information,” “I don't like any of the candidates,” and “I don't want to give this election legitimacy.”我听到的三个最常见的原因是:“我没有足够的信息”,“我不喜欢任何候选人”和“我不想赋予选举合法性”。 It is worth examining why, in my view, each argument is flawed, and if, given the unique circumstances of this year's election, there is at least one ethical reason not to vote.在我看来,值得探讨的是,为什么每个论点都是有缺陷的,并且,鉴于今年大选的特殊情况,至少有一个道德理由不投票。

1.缺乏信息

据最近的一项 亿项目研究, nonvoters are twice as likely as active voters to say they do not feel they have enough information about candidates and issues to decide how to vote.的投票者说,他们认为自己没有足够的候选人信息和问题来决定如何投票,因此非投票者的可能性是现役选民的两倍。 This group of nonvoters might believe that it is unethical to vote这群非投票者可能会认为投票是不道德的 因为他们不知情。 在“投票的伦理,”政治哲学家 杰森·布伦南(Jason Brennan) 认为不知情的公民有道德上的义务不投票,因为他们的不知情的投票会产生损害我们政治制度的结果。

这群非投票者的诚实值得称赞,尤其是与遭受心理学家称为“达克效应”,并错误地认为他们比他们更了解情况。


从InnerSelf获取最新信息


But an uninformed voter can fix that problem, and remove the ethical dilemma – and with minimal time and effort.但是,不知情的选民可以解决此问题,并消除道德上的困境-只需最少的时间和精力。 Information about each candidate's platform is more accessible than ever.有关每个候选人平台的信息比以往任何时候都更容易访问。 It can be found online, in print and through conversation.可以在线,通过印刷和通过对话找到它。 The problem today is instead how to find reliable, nonpartisan information.如今的问题是如何找到可靠的,无党派的信息。 One of the clear benefits of的明显好处之一 邮寄投票 is that it gives voters more time to fill out their ballot carefully without feeling rushed.是因为它使选民有更多的时间仔细地填写选票,而不会感到仓促。 While completing the ballot at home, they can educate themselves about each of the candidates and issues.在家里完成投票的同时,他们可以对每个候选人和问题进行自我教育。

2.不喜欢候选人

Another common reason for not voting is dislike of the candidates.不投票的另一个常见原因是不喜欢候选人。 In fact, a Pew Research study found实际上,皮尤研究中心的一项研究发现 25%的已注册投票者 did not vote in the 2016 election because of a “dislike of the candidates or campaign issues.”由于“不喜欢候选人或竞选问题”而没有在XNUMX年大选中投票。 Based on their dislike of both candidates, they found themselves unable to vote for either one in good conscience.基于他们对两位候选人的厌恶,他们发现自己无法良心投票给任何一位候选人。

What this leaves open, however, is the question of where this “dislike” comes from.然而,剩下的问题是这种“不喜欢”来自何处。 It is quite possibly the product of negative campaigning, which promotes negative attitudes toward the opposing candidate.这很可能是消极竞选活动的产物,它促进了对对方候选人的消极态度。 If you already dislike one party's candidate,如果您已经不喜欢某一方的候选人, 负面广告会激发同样的负面情绪 toward the other party's candidate.对另一方的候选人。 This suggests that negative campaign advertising carries out a strategy to这表明,负面广告系列广告实施了一项策略, 通过使选民不喜欢两个候选人来压抑整体选民投票率.

But dislike is not a sufficient reason for abstaining.但是,不满并不是弃权的充分理由。 The mistake here, I believe, is that choices are not always between a positive and negative, a good and a bad.我认为,这里的错误是,选择并不总是在积极与消极之间,好与坏之间进行。 Voters often have to choose between two good or two bad options.选民通常必须在两个好选择或两个坏选择之间进行选择。 It's also worth noting that, in addition to the top of the ticket, there are often还值得注意的是,除了门票的最高价外,通常还有 重要的州和地方投票竞赛。 Finding just one candidate or policy proposal that you truly support can make the effort to vote worthwhile.仅找到您真正支持的候选人或政策建议,就可以使投票工作值得。 State and local races are sometimes very close, so each vote really can be meaningful.州和地方种族有时会非常接近,因此每次投票实际上都可能有意义。

3.助长系统腐败

拒绝投票的两个普遍原因是:“他们的投票无所谓”和“政治制度腐败”的态度,这两种观点合计占无投票权人口的20%。 亿项目的非投票者调查。 Voter turnout is often选民投票率很高 解释为建立政治合法性的公共支持的标志。 By abstaining, some nonvoters might see themselves as opting out from a corrupt system that produces illegitimate results.通过弃权,一些不投票者可能会认为自己退出了产生非法结果的腐败制度。

This way of thinking might be justified in an authoritarian regime, for example, which occasionally holds fake elections to demonstrate popular support.例如,在独裁政权中这种思维方式可能是合理的,该政权偶尔举行假选举以表明民众的支持。 In such a society, abstaining from voting might make a legitimate point about the absence of open and fair elections.在这样的社会中,放弃投票可能会为缺乏公开和公正的选举辩护。 But a 2019 report但是XNUMX年的报告 将美国列为第25名最民主的国家,将其归类为“有缺陷的民主国家”,但仍然是民主国家。 If democratic elections are legitimate and their results are respected, voter abstention in the US has no practical impact that would distinguish it from voter apathy.如果民主选举是合法的并且其结果得到尊重,那么美国的弃权选举不会产生任何实际影响,这不会使它与选民冷漠区分开。

All three of the above arguments fail, in my opinion, because they measure the worth of voting primarily in terms of its results.在我看来,上述所有三个论点都失败了,因为它们主要根据结果来衡量投票的价值。 Voting may or may not yield the outcome individuals want, but without it, there is no democratic society.投票可能会或可能不会产生个人想要的结果,但是没有投票,就不会有民主社会。

4.但是...

In the current context of the pandemic, there is one valid ethical reason for not voting, at least not in person.在当前的大流行背景下,存在一个不参与投票,至少不亲自投票的合法伦理理由。 On Election Day, if you are diagnosed with COVID-19 or have similar symptoms or are quarantined, then you should certainly not show up to the polls.在选举日,如果您被诊断出患有COVID-XNUMX或有类似症状或被隔离,那么您当然不应该参加民意测验。 The good of your vote will be outweighed by the potential harm of exposing other voters to the virus.将其他选民暴露于这种病毒的潜在危害将超过您的选票。 Of course, as individuals we cannot know now whether we will find ourselves in that position on Election Day.当然,作为个人,我们现在不知道我们是否会在选举日找到自己的位置。 But as a society we can predict that a significant percentage of the population will find themselves precisely in that situation at that time.但是,作为一个社会,我们可以预测,当时相当大一部分人口将恰好处于这种状况。

知道会发生这种情况,选民需要采用伦理学家所说的“预防原则。” This principle says people should take steps to avoid or reduce harms to others, such as risking their life or health.该原则要求人们应采取措施避免或减少对他人的伤害,例如冒着生命危险或健康风险。

基于预防原则,伦理学家可能会辩称,个人应要求缺席投票,如果他们 国家提供此选项。 And in turn, the precautionary principle requires that each state should make absentee or mail-in ballots available to all registered voters.反过来,预防原则要求每个州都应向所有注册选民提供缺席或邮寄选票。 We should protect ourselves and all other citizens from having to choose between their health and their voting rights.我们应该保护自己和所有其他公民,使其不必在健康和投票权之间做出选择。谈话

关于作者

哲学教授斯科特·戴维森(Scott Davidson), 西弗吉尼亚大学(West Virginia University)

本文重新发表 谈话 根据知识共享许可。 阅读 原创文章.

enafarZH-CNzh-TWnltlfifrdehiiditjakomsnofaptruessvtrvi

按照InnerSelf

Facebook的图标Twitter的图标RSS图标

通过电子邮件获取最新的

{emailcloak = OFF}

我在朋友的帮助下过得很快

编者的话

InnerSelf通讯:18,2020年10月
by InnerSelf员工
如今,我们生活在小型泡泡中……在我们自己的家中,在工作中和在公共场合,也许在我们自己的思想和情感中。 然而,生活在泡沫中,或感觉像我们…
InnerSelf通讯:11,2020年10月
by InnerSelf员工
人生是一段旅程,就像大多数旅程一样,人生伴随着跌宕起伏。 就像白天总是在夜晚之后一样,我们的个人日常经历也是如此,从黑暗到光亮,以及来回往返。 然而,…
InnerSelf通讯:4,2020年10月
by InnerSelf员工
Whatever we are going through, both individually and collectively, we must remember that we are not helpless victims.无论我们正在经历的是个人还是集体,我们都必须记住,我们不是无助的受害者。 We can reclaim our power to carve our own path and to heal our lives, spiritually…我们可以在精神上收回自己的力量,以开拓自己的道路并治愈我们的生活……
InnerSelf通讯:9月27,2020
by InnerSelf员工
人类最大的优势之一就是我们的灵活性,创新能力和开创思维能力。 成为昨天或前一天以外的人。 我们可以改变……
对我有用的:“为了最高的利益”
by Marie T. Russell,InnerSelf
我之所以分享“对我有用的东西”,是因为它也可能对您有用。 如果我做的方式不完全正确,那么由于我们都是独一无二的,因此态度或方法的某些差异很可能是某种……