Final Version of research paper
Vote
or lose your identity; the choice is yours
Jorja
Mason
English 101 Section 33
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
English 101 Section 33
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Abstract
Voting has long been a vital expression of society’s constitutional rights, although its numbers are not reflected according to its importance. It is quite interesting how something that historically has been denied from various groups is being taken for granted. After much exploration of this topic a thought arises in regards to the importance of voting and if individuals actually poses a duty to do it. From various resources a consensus is reached; voting is a moral obligation because of the morality in politics itself, the benefits that can be falsely gained when one did not part take in the actual work, and that people have a duty to themselves to fulfill their morals.
Voting has long been a vital expression of society’s constitutional rights, although its numbers are not reflected according to its importance. It is quite interesting how something that historically has been denied from various groups is being taken for granted. After much exploration of this topic a thought arises in regards to the importance of voting and if individuals actually poses a duty to do it. From various resources a consensus is reached; voting is a moral obligation because of the morality in politics itself, the benefits that can be falsely gained when one did not part take in the actual work, and that people have a duty to themselves to fulfill their morals.
Many have fought for the privilege to vote yet, it is still being taken for granted. Imagine the blood, sweat, and tears of your ancestors in pursuit of simply a voice, a concept that seems almost miniscule in present day society. Historically, voting rights have been denied from many groups in return taking away their voice in democracy. Exams, conditions and even gender restrictions have been placed on individuals to limit their voice in the selection of taxes, future leaders, etc.… Although voting turn out and many other factors contribute to the actual selection of a candidate, individuals do in fact possess a moral duty to vote.
There are many categories in politics itself. Politics
does not only pertain to the methods in which governments handle foreign
affairs but how they resolve debates among a group of persons as well. The goal
of policy makers are to make laws that satisfy both parties, however the
majorities view is often what drives the compromise. Issues that deal with the
moral judgements in policy making are classified as Morality politics. The academic article “Does Morality Policy
Exist? Testing a basic assumption” By Christopher z. Mooney and Richard G. Schuldt,
gives insight on the types of issues which fall under the moral category. In
this article a distinction between the commonly thought of politics and morality
politics is accentuated as he lays down the foundation of issues’ moral
components, and their direct involvement with people that make it so personal.
Some examples of topics that intertwine policy and ethics are abortion, gay
marriage, the death penalty, genetic engineering, etc... These topics directly
reflect individuals’ moral values and tend to spark passion, if laws coincide
or go against those values. Some issues however can be more favorable than
others. Favorable meaning they require immediate action because the matter is
evidently universally ethical. Mooney and Schuldt express how moral values are
connected with involvement when it is stated “This distinctive bundle of
qualities has been used to develop hypotheses about the distinctive politics of
this policy type. Importantly, these distinguishing features of morality policy
are assumed to exist in the perceptions of those involved in the debate rather
than in anything related to policy substance (Eastvold, 2004; Mooney, 2001).
That is, how an issue is framed, rather than its intrinsic content, leads to
its classification as a morality policy.” (Mooney, Schuldt 2008) This stresses
the individual being the central component that drives the debate. The ideas
and feelings of those involved matter more than the content of the actual law itself.
The law is a reflection of the people’s behavior rather than people compromising
personal values to abide by the policy itself. A conclusion can be drawn that
when individuals morals are threatened they tend to participate more in the policy
making process.
Individuals are prone to participation in morality politics, because morality politics’ requirements are less demanding. Requirements could be a measured degree of knowledge on a subject or credentials that give one’s statements credibility. Morality politics do not constitute these type of requirements. “First, consider the question of whether this is “an issue where more information helps people to have an opinion” or “an issue where people just need to apply their basic moral values to have an opinion.” In addition to measuring perceived moral content, this question can also be interpreted as indicating the technical complexity of an issue. That is, it probably takes more information to make decisions about more complex issues” said Mooney and Schuldt (P.12). By the authors raising this question it strengthens the assumption that people generally do not need degrees or prior knowledge to have an opinion or their opinion to be respected for that matter. If that is the case then we can also assume anyone who has morals can take part in this practice and will not be discriminated against. Although factors like differing religion and customs can cause discrimination overall most morals judgements for example; killing, rape, suicide, etc... are universally wrong judgements. In opposition politics that do not deal mostly with morality, require candidates or people who want power, not only to give compelling moral arguments but logical ones as well based upon facts or previous trends. Other than morals being sufficient for participation in morality politics people generally participate more on the basis that the decision’s to these moral dilemmas will have an impact on their life itself directly or a loved one. Moral debates often have to do with social problems rather than economic issues that politics usually address. For example abortion or the death penalty will interfere directly with pro-choice and even be a life or death decision for someone rather than taxes or military spending which will ultimately affect society but at a slower pace. The latter’s importance also varies as well from individual to individual based on the prior knowledge people have on the subject and their economic class which creates more biases because everyone is not entitled to economic equality as they are to social equality. Although people’s morals are correlated to politics, it seems insufficient enough to make the majority want to participate in voting. The idea that voting can be its own virtue should also encourage those that they obligation to do so.
There are many rewards in the act of voting itself and it is an expression of moral connectivity. When you do not vote you are in reality giving your vote to someone else by leaving that window open for someone else’s values to fill the void. By voting someone’s thoughts and views are valued because a candidate is chosen that will best carry out those values and in most cases will genuinely have similar views.
The ted talk video (Jonathan Haidt 2008) supports exactly how political prejudices are bias we form in regards to our moral values. Individuals tend to choose candidates and be a part of political groups who share similar thought processes as their own. As human beings we desire to belong and feel important. When others share similar values we feel a part of something bigger than what we alone are. This is rewarding because if an individual feels their opinions matter and their morals are not violated they will flourish more socially and internally as well. When there is a confidence in your ideas the tendency of generating more ideas and voicing those ideas will heighten. The actual bliss on voting itself is expressed by (Phillip Jones, John Hudson 2000) article because it accentuates the cognitive psychological process that goes into the act of voting itself. This is expressed when he states “They also confirm the importance of civic duty….The importance on intrinsic motivation is more clearly identified when the distinction between the decision to vote and the decision on how to vote is made implicit.” (Phillip Jones, John Hudson 2000). This accentuates the importance of civic duty and its motivation to perform the duty. Civic duty refers to the responsibilities citizens owe to their government, this goes hand in hand with their rights as well. These responsibilities include actives such as voting, serving on the jury, or the payment of taxes. These responsibilities require action because they allow the government to be able to carry out practices that will benefit society as a whole. If one fails to carry out this duty, projects and operations will fall short because everyone has a specific role, only when these roles are played collectively a finish product will be the result. This idea gives importance to the individual as well as the system itself. Another point mentioned in the article is individuals feel more confident to vote when the reasons behind the decision and the act of voting itself is made clear. Confidence is rewarding because it allows individuals to feel in complete control of their actions and bliss about the choices made. On the other hand civic duty is breached when the integrity of political officials is questioned, this will weaken the motivation to vote. However if individuals assumed most political officials to lack integrity the act of voting would be obsolete and the government itself. In addition if two candidates both possessed qualities that would make their selection into office uncertain, picking the lesser evil of the two will put voters more at ease than ignoring their civic duty all together. Avoiding the duty to do this can result in negative consequences for even those who performed their civic duty. An example of this would be the recent 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. Many people did not vote because they disliked both candidates for various reasons. Some reasons of dislike for Clinton was due to her inability to follow federal regulations and the use of a personal email to handle federal and personal affairs, this questioned her trust. On the other hand businessman Donald trump was just too radical and often said offensive and racist comments about women, the LGBT community, and people of Spanish decent. The two were a very unlikely pair Americans would want to choose, and most passed up their voting rights all together as a result.
This image is a representation on
the percent of people who actually voted and the people who did not, it also
gives a breakdown of were the votes actually went. Although Hilary managed to win
the popular vote she did not win enough electoral votes to secure her place into
office. As a result of the inactivity in the voting polls, Donald Trump was
granted 45th president of the United States and will serve until the
year 2020. While in office Trump as done many things to upset Americans he has
plans to take away DACA which grants temporary protection for undocumented immigrants,
Abolish Obama care which provides health care to thousands, and is trying to
enact limitations on the kinds of things the press can say and or publish etc.…
Many Americans will be affected and can potentially lose their livelihood on
account of the president’s actions. If more people made their values and
concerns of well-being a priority regardless of personal preferences, things might’ve
been very different. People owe it to themselves to stay true to their values
and ideas, especially if they ever want to see results. In conclusion the
choice to carry out your civic duty will be a reflection of the outcomes.
When choosing to vote or not to vote the effect on society will still be represented by either choice. On several philosophical theories on morality individuals do possess the duty to vote. On a consequentialist view one should vote because of the duty to promote the most good. Another moral theory that can be applied is based on kantian approach which deals with rationality and is derived from the thought that the human species are rational creatures. And acting in ways which can’t be universalized would be very irrational. If no one voted things would be a catastrophe and how would the next leader be selected, democracy might diminish all together. As mentioned in the academic journal “Debate: Why does the excellent citizen vote?” by Luke Maring failing to vote disrespects the practice of democracy. Maring states “To sum up: Many social practices are founded upon abstract ideals. This is a normative claim. Ideals are foundational in the sense that they help to determine what counts as excellent participation. That players should always act for the sake of their team is a foundational ideal of basketball; the pursuit of truth is foundational for philosophy. Recognition respect is the vehicle by which abstract ideals get normative traction upon action. We disrespect our practice by failing to give its foundational ideals appropriate consideration in our practical deliberations.” (Luke Maring, 2015) This statement supports the reason why we have voting and democracy in place all together. Voting was created on a basis of ideals that everyone should follow and when followed correctly should achieve the act, also a voting requirement is that you are a citizen. By failing to vote you are not displaying qualities, a citizen would presume to have. These foundations of voting guide our decisions on what constitutes a candidate fit for a position of power. By being a part of the decision it shows an understanding that by giving each individual power, is moral equality. Moral equality meaning ones morals are no more valuable than the next persons. When we fail to vote and reap the benefits of those who did, when we were given the same chance it is unfair. That is riding solely on the actions of those who were responsible enough to perform their civic duty.
In conclusion individuals are obligated to vote on the idea that everyone shares the same amenities therefore they should share the same civic duties. When one chooses to ignore that duty they are breaching the system itself in return weakening it. If more individuals took initiative when the time came to voice their opinions they would be more satisfied with the outcomes received. When choosing the path opposite of the ballet box you are choosing silence.
Individuals are prone to participation in morality politics, because morality politics’ requirements are less demanding. Requirements could be a measured degree of knowledge on a subject or credentials that give one’s statements credibility. Morality politics do not constitute these type of requirements. “First, consider the question of whether this is “an issue where more information helps people to have an opinion” or “an issue where people just need to apply their basic moral values to have an opinion.” In addition to measuring perceived moral content, this question can also be interpreted as indicating the technical complexity of an issue. That is, it probably takes more information to make decisions about more complex issues” said Mooney and Schuldt (P.12). By the authors raising this question it strengthens the assumption that people generally do not need degrees or prior knowledge to have an opinion or their opinion to be respected for that matter. If that is the case then we can also assume anyone who has morals can take part in this practice and will not be discriminated against. Although factors like differing religion and customs can cause discrimination overall most morals judgements for example; killing, rape, suicide, etc... are universally wrong judgements. In opposition politics that do not deal mostly with morality, require candidates or people who want power, not only to give compelling moral arguments but logical ones as well based upon facts or previous trends. Other than morals being sufficient for participation in morality politics people generally participate more on the basis that the decision’s to these moral dilemmas will have an impact on their life itself directly or a loved one. Moral debates often have to do with social problems rather than economic issues that politics usually address. For example abortion or the death penalty will interfere directly with pro-choice and even be a life or death decision for someone rather than taxes or military spending which will ultimately affect society but at a slower pace. The latter’s importance also varies as well from individual to individual based on the prior knowledge people have on the subject and their economic class which creates more biases because everyone is not entitled to economic equality as they are to social equality. Although people’s morals are correlated to politics, it seems insufficient enough to make the majority want to participate in voting. The idea that voting can be its own virtue should also encourage those that they obligation to do so.
There are many rewards in the act of voting itself and it is an expression of moral connectivity. When you do not vote you are in reality giving your vote to someone else by leaving that window open for someone else’s values to fill the void. By voting someone’s thoughts and views are valued because a candidate is chosen that will best carry out those values and in most cases will genuinely have similar views.
The ted talk video (Jonathan Haidt 2008) supports exactly how political prejudices are bias we form in regards to our moral values. Individuals tend to choose candidates and be a part of political groups who share similar thought processes as their own. As human beings we desire to belong and feel important. When others share similar values we feel a part of something bigger than what we alone are. This is rewarding because if an individual feels their opinions matter and their morals are not violated they will flourish more socially and internally as well. When there is a confidence in your ideas the tendency of generating more ideas and voicing those ideas will heighten. The actual bliss on voting itself is expressed by (Phillip Jones, John Hudson 2000) article because it accentuates the cognitive psychological process that goes into the act of voting itself. This is expressed when he states “They also confirm the importance of civic duty….The importance on intrinsic motivation is more clearly identified when the distinction between the decision to vote and the decision on how to vote is made implicit.” (Phillip Jones, John Hudson 2000). This accentuates the importance of civic duty and its motivation to perform the duty. Civic duty refers to the responsibilities citizens owe to their government, this goes hand in hand with their rights as well. These responsibilities include actives such as voting, serving on the jury, or the payment of taxes. These responsibilities require action because they allow the government to be able to carry out practices that will benefit society as a whole. If one fails to carry out this duty, projects and operations will fall short because everyone has a specific role, only when these roles are played collectively a finish product will be the result. This idea gives importance to the individual as well as the system itself. Another point mentioned in the article is individuals feel more confident to vote when the reasons behind the decision and the act of voting itself is made clear. Confidence is rewarding because it allows individuals to feel in complete control of their actions and bliss about the choices made. On the other hand civic duty is breached when the integrity of political officials is questioned, this will weaken the motivation to vote. However if individuals assumed most political officials to lack integrity the act of voting would be obsolete and the government itself. In addition if two candidates both possessed qualities that would make their selection into office uncertain, picking the lesser evil of the two will put voters more at ease than ignoring their civic duty all together. Avoiding the duty to do this can result in negative consequences for even those who performed their civic duty. An example of this would be the recent 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. Many people did not vote because they disliked both candidates for various reasons. Some reasons of dislike for Clinton was due to her inability to follow federal regulations and the use of a personal email to handle federal and personal affairs, this questioned her trust. On the other hand businessman Donald trump was just too radical and often said offensive and racist comments about women, the LGBT community, and people of Spanish decent. The two were a very unlikely pair Americans would want to choose, and most passed up their voting rights all together as a result.
This image is a representation on
the percent of people who actually voted and the people who did not, it also
gives a breakdown of were the votes actually went. Although Hilary managed to win
the popular vote she did not win enough electoral votes to secure her place into
office. As a result of the inactivity in the voting polls, Donald Trump was
granted 45th president of the United States and will serve until the
year 2020. While in office Trump as done many things to upset Americans he has
plans to take away DACA which grants temporary protection for undocumented immigrants,
Abolish Obama care which provides health care to thousands, and is trying to
enact limitations on the kinds of things the press can say and or publish etc.…
Many Americans will be affected and can potentially lose their livelihood on
account of the president’s actions. If more people made their values and
concerns of well-being a priority regardless of personal preferences, things might’ve
been very different. People owe it to themselves to stay true to their values
and ideas, especially if they ever want to see results. In conclusion the
choice to carry out your civic duty will be a reflection of the outcomes.When choosing to vote or not to vote the effect on society will still be represented by either choice. On several philosophical theories on morality individuals do possess the duty to vote. On a consequentialist view one should vote because of the duty to promote the most good. Another moral theory that can be applied is based on kantian approach which deals with rationality and is derived from the thought that the human species are rational creatures. And acting in ways which can’t be universalized would be very irrational. If no one voted things would be a catastrophe and how would the next leader be selected, democracy might diminish all together. As mentioned in the academic journal “Debate: Why does the excellent citizen vote?” by Luke Maring failing to vote disrespects the practice of democracy. Maring states “To sum up: Many social practices are founded upon abstract ideals. This is a normative claim. Ideals are foundational in the sense that they help to determine what counts as excellent participation. That players should always act for the sake of their team is a foundational ideal of basketball; the pursuit of truth is foundational for philosophy. Recognition respect is the vehicle by which abstract ideals get normative traction upon action. We disrespect our practice by failing to give its foundational ideals appropriate consideration in our practical deliberations.” (Luke Maring, 2015) This statement supports the reason why we have voting and democracy in place all together. Voting was created on a basis of ideals that everyone should follow and when followed correctly should achieve the act, also a voting requirement is that you are a citizen. By failing to vote you are not displaying qualities, a citizen would presume to have. These foundations of voting guide our decisions on what constitutes a candidate fit for a position of power. By being a part of the decision it shows an understanding that by giving each individual power, is moral equality. Moral equality meaning ones morals are no more valuable than the next persons. When we fail to vote and reap the benefits of those who did, when we were given the same chance it is unfair. That is riding solely on the actions of those who were responsible enough to perform their civic duty.
In conclusion individuals are obligated to vote on the idea that everyone shares the same amenities therefore they should share the same civic duties. When one chooses to ignore that duty they are breaching the system itself in return weakening it. If more individuals took initiative when the time came to voice their opinions they would be more satisfied with the outcomes received. When choosing the path opposite of the ballet box you are choosing silence.
Haidt, J.
(n.d.). Retrieved December 05, 2017, from
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind#t-1091610
Jones, P., & Hudson, J. (2000). Civic Duty and Expressive Voting: Is Virtue its own Reward? Kyklos, 53(1), 3-16. doi:10.1111/1467-6435.00106
Maring, L. (2015). Debate: Why Does the Excellent Citizen Vote? Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(2), 245-257. doi:10.1111/jopp.12081
Mooney, C. Z., & Schuldt, R. G. (2008). Does Morality Policy Exist? Testing a Basic Assumption. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 199-218. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00262.x
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Half-of-voters-did-not-vote-e1478881026839.jpgJones, P., & Hudson, J. (2000). Civic Duty and Expressive Voting: Is Virtue its own Reward? Kyklos, 53(1), 3-16. doi:10.1111/1467-6435.00106
Maring, L. (2015). Debate: Why Does the Excellent Citizen Vote? Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(2), 245-257. doi:10.1111/jopp.12081
Mooney, C. Z., & Schuldt, R. G. (2008). Does Morality Policy Exist? Testing a Basic Assumption. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 199-218. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00262.x
Comments
Post a Comment