Monday, November 3, 2014
TO Vote, or NOT To Vote?
Knowing this will not find anything like unanimous approval, still:
Yer ol' perfesser'z outlined this before, but on 'election eve,' it is even more important:
For an "ethical person' confronted with choices for action which include ONLY different levels of vileness and evil, there is, arguendo, an ethical duty to support the choice that portends the LEAST harm to the GREATEST number. This is the "MiniMax" position familiar rto game therorists and advocated by America's best renowned ethicist, (the late) John Rawls, in his landmark treatise: "A Theory of Justice."
If we cannot prevent evil (and we cannot), we have the responsibility to diminish it to the extent possible for the greatest number of people.
I could see boycotting the vote only on the proviso that that were unambiguously understood to be an act of protest and resistance.
But since already (approximately) 50% or more of the electorate will probably abstain for their own reasons, my (and YOUR) abstention would not create any greater effect than voting would; so I shall cast my ballot--tomorrow, in person... It impresses NO ONE to march into the polling place and declare: "Fuck you! I'm not VOTING!~"
John Oliver's correct, too, in stressing that the closer to 'your' home the person lives for whom you will vote, the more important it is that you cast your vote, because the smaller the pool of voters, the more likely a vote is to have an impact.
That is just me, prolly; YMMV.