You know, I was in my ethics class today, and I started thinking again (a horrible habit I have).
…Democratic vs Republican…
…Mercy vs. Justice…
…Ethical Relativism and Act Utilitarianism vs. Ethical Absolutism and Rule Utilitarianism…
…man as a mean unto himself vs. man as a means to an end…
These are all really the same argument.
The problem, though? All the arguments on the right (those most often taken by Republicans over Democrats), they’re now considered to be flawed or, at most, incomplete.
For instance, starting with Mercy vs. Justice … the bible. It is pretty much established that the bible is divided into two large parts: The Old Testament and The New Testament. In the old testament, God was vengeful, he placed more value on Justice than Mercy. Then, Jesus came, and he said, “Wait, guys, you’re killing each other. Take a second to think about whether Hammurabi even had the right to be making codes for man. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and all that jazz.
Modern example, death penalty and abortion. The death penalty is Old Testament Justice in action. Despite the numerous people shown to be innocent after they are murdered by the state, that doesn’t matter. They don’t want to risk being seen as “weak” in front of the criminals. Now, take abortion… justice being masked as mercy. “If you get knocked up, you will have that child… you must keep the fetus for it is sacred!” The opposing ideal says, “Wait, I’m not convinced that a fetus even counts as a child, or even a human yet. Maybe we should just let it slide this time, for the sake of both you and the child.”
Next we have questions of Ethical Relativism and Act Utilitarianism vs. Ethical Absolutism and Rule Utilitarianism. For those who don’t know, ethical relativism is the theory of ethics that states that morals are completely situational and cannot be derived from universals. This allows for what are considered atrocities such as slavery (if you recall, it was a republican that freed the slaves… however, once they were freed, it was a democrat who recognized their equal rights). Act Utilitarianism says that every situation or moral dilemma is unique and should be acted on as how it brings the most benefit to the most people. On the other side of the coin, is ethical absolutism. This theory states that there are rules and guidelines that should be applied and acted on evenly amongst all people. Often these are rules which can be proven universally good (such as charity, because if everyone gave charity, everyone would benefit from charity) or universally bad (such as lying, because if everyone lied, there would be chaos). Rule Utilitarianism is much like Act Utilitarianism in that it sees what would bring the most good to the most people to determine the “utility” of an act, but then it goes further and derives rules for determining utility based on such previously proven acts. This allows for the death penalty as a means of societal self defense.
There’s problems with all of these forms of ethics, however, the ethical absolutists have not stood the test of time. Reasons for this are obvious. If I placed a gun to your mother’s head and told you, “If this is your mother, I will kill her. Is this your mother?” A moral absolutist would be required to tell the truth (because, as stated above, honesty is the only policy that is universally cogent). The result, your mother dies. However, this situation could easily be avoided if you just lied… but as a moral absolutist, you cannot lie (which, as I believe, Bush really pays no attention to… I’m speaking more of his constituents when I speak of moral absolutism). An ethical relativist, however, could easily look this person in the eye and lie, thereby saving his mother. The result? The ultimate good is accomplished, however… this person sacrificed integrity. Which leads to the strong emphasis on integrity in the republican party. For the members (not necessarily Bush or his administration, mind you, as much as his constituents), integrity is a very big deal and they want to keep it. Democrats, however, are seen as slimy, or flip-floppers. Why? They keep the ultimate good in mind, they feel they can do what is best for others, and this often includes changing one’s mind.
The last real point is man as a means unto himself versus man as a means to an end. This question speaks directly to “who may I use to further the good?” Machiavelli stated once that, “the ends justify the means.” All is fair in love and war, right? Then, the great ethical absolutist, Kant, spoke of man as a means unto himself. This means, no one has the right to use another person. Ironically, I judge that Republicans are truly using man as a means to an end more than a means to himself, which is why they seem rather hypocritical at times to me. While they may use mass graves that are decades old and the torture of sports stars to justify the, now, over 1000 dead soldiers in Iraq, they ignore the lives of the families and soldiers that actually fought in this war. While they think they’re looking out for the interest of small America by supporting an horribly uneven electoral system, they’re overlooking the disenfranchised voters whose votes count less than those who live in, say, Wisconsin. While they may support tax breaks and refunds, they forget that the money used by those taxes ultimately provide jobs, security, schooling, some health facilities, grants and scholarships, roads, welfare and food stamps, etc. … that they or someone they know will use! They further their own means at the sake of society’s. And it is for this reason, I think that the Republican government we have now is using the people more than caring for them.
While you may disagree with the conclusion or the premises I proposed, I still feel that this is worth a look into. When choosing a candidate, you shouldn’t just look at the issues that are stood for, but also the ethical structure that those decisions are based on. For me, the choice is clear. I do not hold affiliation to one particular party, as if the Republicans changed their views to be more like the Democrats and vice versa, I would support Republicans. It’s not the people, it’s the values. I do not think we have the burden of administering slant justice abroad to people who do not cry out for us. I do not think we have the burden of morality over the world. I do not think man has the right to use other men as a means to his goals. I believe in mercy, I believe in perspective, and I believe in kindness. This is why I am voting how I am voting.
How do you plan to vote?