It’s tough to be honest when writing on the ethics of voting. You want to justify your voting patterns.
It might be even tougher to be perceived as honest. Readers naturally wonder, “Are you drawing those ethical boundaries in a way that favors your preferred candidate?” Call it a suspicion of ethical gerrymandering.
And it’s a healthy suspicion. For you to wonder about me. For me to wonder about myself or anyone else on this topic.
CARELESS ARGUMENTS
A few years ago, at a dinner party of Christian academics, I sat next to a university professor who labelled herself politically liberal and pro-life. She said, “The Republicans are pro-life on abortion; the Democrats are pro-life on capital punishment. So I realized those two things cancel each other out, leaving me free to vote on other matters.”
Leaving aside any feelings I might have about Democrats or Republicans, may I suggest that this sounded like gerrymandering ethics? She wanted to vote Democrat, so she mapped out a contorted argument to justify it. The thought bubble in my head read, “Wait, how many people have been put to death by capital punishment since the Supreme Court re-legalized it in 1976 versus how
To continue...read the full-length post originally published on this site.
