Is voting (for those who are eligible) a moral obligation?
Uninformed votes would only hurt us more.
Voting has hardly any power. It's just a political trick to make the population think their in control. But their not
If you don't care, if you aren't informed, I for one don't want you to vote!
Morality and politics are a lot like oil and vinegar.
Giant Douche v Turd Sandwich
There is no morality in that.
It's your choice to vote or not, it's not like you HAVE to or are obligated to. It is a right, one that you can choose to pursue or not.
Citizens have an obligation to get informed and vote. But if you aren't informed, don't vote.
Unless you are an anarchist or hate democracy, you really should vote.
Agreed. --- Also it is really hard to hold an actual (non-trolling) argument on this app. This was a good one. Thanks for participating with me.
Yeah that one.
It is your civic duty. It has nothing to do with morality.
Other is what makes the moral an objective measure. The Romans enslaved people who they conquered and they did not care who they conquered aka without prejudice. Americans and Europeans enslaved Africans because they were different skin color.
I'm going to try to start over. Every action has an inherent moral or immoral characteristic. War, murder, theft, pornography. Even things like dancing, lust and procrastination had moral implications. Whether you accept them as moral or immoral is subjective, but the fact that they are one or the
Also: side note, the Romans also enslaved other races of people. The Spanish. Celts. Gauls. et al.
They also punished people who were indebted to the wealthy with forced slavery. They would also brand them to mark them as such.
You validated everything I am trying to say, when you said that you adopted them as your own. You didn't make them up. You chose them. For yourself. You. They are a collection of beliefs and rights and wrongs that you adhere to.
Your exact moral make-up is yours alone. Therefore it is subjective.
The thing about the objectivity of morals is that they aren't MY morals. I have adopted them from a standard outside of myself. That is what makes them objective. If I created morals, and them called them objective I would be the arrogant fool you describe, but I didn't make any of the morals.
Were the romans wrong to own slaves? Is slavery immoral? American slavery was the imprisonment of one people or ethnicity whereas the Romans enslaved people based upon their inability to pay off debts or or crimes etc.
Your belief that your morals--the only correct morals--are to be accepted by all is arrogant, uninformed, and prideful.
I'm not saying that you are those things. Please don't read my comment wrong. I'm saying your understanding of morality isn't as open minded or informed as it should be.
Only our society now views it is "morally wrong." because we have changed our cultural values.
Do I personally find it morally wrong? Yes. I would never have slaves. Support slavery. Or accept other's that did.
That is only my moral belief, however. There are still cultures today that have slaves.
I think you are fundamentally wrong. Universal morality isn't possible. Look at history. Real history. Were the Romans morally reprehensible because their society approved of slavery? No. In their culture at that time it was social an ethically accepted. They wouldn't have viewed it as wrong.
If I say it is immoral to dance at a club, and you say it is NOT immoral to dance at a club. One of us has to be wrong. The same act cannot be both moral and immoral.
There has to be an absolute moral right! Without those absolutes we wouldn't have laws! If morals are subjective, and I dont think it is morally wrong to murder, who is anyone else to say don't murder! Rather, we have an absolute moral code that says murder is wrong.
It is the right and the duty of the citizen to vote.
You know you are likely right. A third party is not likely to win now but if we stopped thinking that way and voted our conscience the tally would rise and people might take notice. Better yet no parties.
I cannot, with good conscience, vote for anybody stupid enough to run for public office and either do nothing or screw over their fellow citizens.
Hah, people will spin it so that voting for anyone else other than the two big clowns is "immoral".
Your mom's a myth.
Was that supposed to be a burn? I think that your lighter's out of fuel.
Informed conservative? Myth.
That IS a coincidence.
Good vocab! Well done!
Morality has naught to do with it. There's no associated prescribed dogma built on mindlessly shaky foundations, so it has nothing in common with"morals." It's a civic duty, based on the ethics of democratic philosophy, for voters to inform themselves and vote or not vote accordingly.
An uninformed voter can do more harm than good. Remember when the convict Al Green (or whatever his name was) was elected?
Most people have no idea what is going on.... So most shouldn't vote
No, it is a civic obligation.
All means American Citizens who are automatically eligible to vote because they are of age
Choosing between the lesser of two evils should NEVER be a moral obligation.
Interesting that some 40% don't pay significant taxes. Coincidence...?
Yes. Every SoHers needs to click choice 'A', or choice 'B'. ;)
But seriously, get informed, get conservative or libertarian, and vote.
The idea that morality is universal is absurd. What like-minded people have differing opinions on are beliefs, values, ethics, and process'. Those vary from person to person and culture to culture, but can be defined by rules, religions, and social agreements. Those things are worth discussing.
Your argument is the exact thing that I am talking about. Morality is not a universal answer to all of the worlds questions. Your belief system. Your values. Your morals are, most likely, not mine. We may share some and may agree from time to time... but that doesn't make our way(s) right for all.
Choosing not to vote could be the best moral choice..
, 'Gee, there were lots of passionate people against water fluoridation in XYZ County, even though more people voted in favor of it, let's stick with the passionate ones.' They are going to see a 55% voter approval, end of story.
The 'powers that be' hear the votes, not the voices.
and the countless emails, petitions, and letters to the county council did not leave any mark in history. No one will look back and say,
votes against. If you lived here and were passionate one way or another, the only way to officially make your voice heard is to vote. The dozen letters I wrote to the editor of the paper, the frequent conversations with citizens,
(a recent issue both socially & on the local ballot) but when it is up to the people, it doesn't matter who has the loudest voice or the most money (in principle anyway), the determining factor as to how our county commissioners proceed is the number of votes for fluoridation and the number of...
In this country, unless you happen to be someone with lots of money & friends in the right places, the only EFFECTIVE voice you have, nationally for sure, locally not as much, is your vote. I can scream, preach, and pass out leaflets in support of my stance on something, e.g. water fluoridation,
Not a moral obligation, but definitely a good idea if you are an educated voter.