An Investigation in the Matter of Voting, in the Style of Thomas Aquinas
The following is a paper I wrote for fun, published in the April, 2017 edition of St. John's College magazine 'Historia'. It is written to mimic the style of The Summa Theologica, which offers a fascinating style of argument. It was created by me, but given the enormous help offered by my friend Seth Kates in the editing process I found he deserved a co-writer credit.
Whether the Johnnie should vote in matters of politics, specifically in which two dominant
We proceed thus:—
Objection I. It would seem that the Johnnie should not vote in matters of politics. Voting in a two-party system is merely choosing ‘the lesser of two evils’.
Obj. II. Further, political matters distract the private person from matters of importance in their life.
Obj. III. Further, one individual vote does not matter.
Obj. IV. Further, a fool will negate the vote of an informed citizen, making the efforts of the latter useless so long as all votes are equal.
On the Contrary, the philosopher Socrates said in voting against a dangerous jury, “I was the only member of the presiding committee to oppose your doing something contrary to the laws, and I voted against it.” (The Apology 32b).
I answer that, It seems that the Johnnie should vote in matters of politics. Deciding to vote should not be an external matter, that is to say, reliant on the circumstances of the world; it should rather be an internal one. The character of the person, and the ideals they hold themselves to, should be considered when deciding whether to participate in a vote. Other matters, listed below, are unhelpful and illogical in deciding to avoid political votes.
Reply Obj. I. The decision to choose between ‘the lesser of two evils’ is a false binary. One may easily choose to not participate in voting, making the decision rather one of three; e.g., left, right, or neither. If one seeks to absolve oneself of the choice created by understanding the harm that both options cause, one’s decision allows the worst of either case. A decision made in the hopes of not associating with either outcome does damage to the personal integrity of the individual far greater than the decision to vote for a flawed candidate. The decision to not vote in this system is not rebellion, it is compliance. When a more virtuous option exists, the option to not participate is cowardly and unbecoming.
Reply Obj. II. People and policies that are given power by the representative vote have the power to ruin nearly everything an individual holds dear. As long as power, war, economies and human rights exist, politics will not be unbecoming of any intellectual thought.
Reply Obj. III. Even in a vote among billions of others, deciding not to vote based on the result of the vote, rather than the act itself, removes all logic for voting both on an individual and societal level. This defeatist logic destroys all reasoning to vote for either the winning or losing side; it throws a tantrum and quits for anything that is not an assured deciding vote. To base the personal decision to vote on the mathematical result allows elections to be decided by those who act, rather than those who create excuses for their inaction.
Reply Obj. IV. Simply by reading this article, one demonstrates an intelligence far superior to the worst citizen that will inevitably vote in political matters. The decision to vote, if nothing else, may be made with the sole purpose of negating the vote of this villain. The inaction
that allows this hypothetical fool to be a deciding voice in a vote of great importance is the result of a lethargic imagination that has not created a citizen wretched enough. This citizen must be understood as morally bankrupt, logically illiterate, and all other manners of evil, until the eventual creation becomes so horrific that the desire to vote against them becomes a necessity.
An Investigation in the Matter of Voting, in the Style of Thomas Aquinas
Cameron Byerly (A19) & Seth Kates (A19)
Whether the Johnnie should vote in matters of politics, specifically in which two dominant
options are provided, and whichever receives more votes is deemed winner?
We proceed thus:—
Objection I. It would seem that the Johnnie should not vote in matters of politics. Voting in a two-party system is merely choosing ‘the lesser of two evils’.
Obj. II. Further, political matters distract the private person from matters of importance in their life.
Obj. III. Further, one individual vote does not matter.
Obj. IV. Further, a fool will negate the vote of an informed citizen, making the efforts of the latter useless so long as all votes are equal.
On the Contrary, the philosopher Socrates said in voting against a dangerous jury, “I was the only member of the presiding committee to oppose your doing something contrary to the laws, and I voted against it.” (The Apology 32b).
I answer that, It seems that the Johnnie should vote in matters of politics. Deciding to vote should not be an external matter, that is to say, reliant on the circumstances of the world; it should rather be an internal one. The character of the person, and the ideals they hold themselves to, should be considered when deciding whether to participate in a vote. Other matters, listed below, are unhelpful and illogical in deciding to avoid political votes.
Reply Obj. I. The decision to choose between ‘the lesser of two evils’ is a false binary. One may easily choose to not participate in voting, making the decision rather one of three; e.g., left, right, or neither. If one seeks to absolve oneself of the choice created by understanding the harm that both options cause, one’s decision allows the worst of either case. A decision made in the hopes of not associating with either outcome does damage to the personal integrity of the individual far greater than the decision to vote for a flawed candidate. The decision to not vote in this system is not rebellion, it is compliance. When a more virtuous option exists, the option to not participate is cowardly and unbecoming.
Reply Obj. II. People and policies that are given power by the representative vote have the power to ruin nearly everything an individual holds dear. As long as power, war, economies and human rights exist, politics will not be unbecoming of any intellectual thought.
Reply Obj. III. Even in a vote among billions of others, deciding not to vote based on the result of the vote, rather than the act itself, removes all logic for voting both on an individual and societal level. This defeatist logic destroys all reasoning to vote for either the winning or losing side; it throws a tantrum and quits for anything that is not an assured deciding vote. To base the personal decision to vote on the mathematical result allows elections to be decided by those who act, rather than those who create excuses for their inaction.
Reply Obj. IV. Simply by reading this article, one demonstrates an intelligence far superior to the worst citizen that will inevitably vote in political matters. The decision to vote, if nothing else, may be made with the sole purpose of negating the vote of this villain. The inaction
that allows this hypothetical fool to be a deciding voice in a vote of great importance is the result of a lethargic imagination that has not created a citizen wretched enough. This citizen must be understood as morally bankrupt, logically illiterate, and all other manners of evil, until the eventual creation becomes so horrific that the desire to vote against them becomes a necessity.
Comments
Post a Comment