According to Jason Brennan, an ethicist from Georgetown University, “most people shouldn’t vote.” That might be a shocking claim from an ethicist, since many consider the act of voting as an ethical responsibility. For him, most American citizens are politically incompetent due to the fact that most of them are ignorant, irrational, or misinformed about political affairs. He claims that there is nothing necessarily immoral about being ignorant, irrational, or misinformed. However, since the stakes are high during elections, the people will be better served if most people, under the influence of ignorance, irrationality, or misinformation, will not vote. I somewhat concur. As a church member, who held leadership roles in local churches, I worry about many politically incompetent Christians who are so eager to vote. Many American Christians claim that they vote based on their moral convictions. As a matter of fact, some major evangelical denominations even directly encourage their members to vote based on their moral convictions. Denominational leaders, of course, do not want to be perceived as directly endorsing a political candidate. They, understandably, do not want to risk the tax exempt status of their local churches. [Note: I am aware that the IRS, for whatever reason, appears too lax in implementing lawful punishments for churches or denominations that directly endorse a particular candidate.] But, for church insiders, we all know the implications of voting based on one’s moral convictions. For conservative evangelicals, for instance, the moral convictions that are worth their political considerations refer to their opposition of legalized abortion and same-sex marriage. Obviously, the candidates who even bother to state their support for legalized abortion and same-sex marriage should not get their votes, if they want to vote based on their moral convictions. They tend to reject such candidates, even if these candidates have reasonable grounds for supporting such legalizations or have other policies, plans, or positions that are potentially good for this country.
However, I think that the act of voting based on one’s moral convictions is irresponsible and misguided. It fails to take seriously the current nature of our society and the implied responsibilities for members of that society. We live in a pluralistic, egalitarian, and democratic society. They are the givens of our political predicament. It is the kind of society that our laws and history aim to establish. It is the kind of society that we ought to maintain and sustain. In a pluralistic society, people are divided by religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs. We should know by now that none among these competing beliefs can be conclusively vindicated as the true ones, at least for now. They will remain controversial. The disputes about these beliefs will remain unsettled. So, the government must take a neutral stance on the correctness of any of these beliefs, without necessarily denying that any of them is in actuality correct. I am not claiming that the government is an essentially amoral institution. A government, or at least the kind of government that we have, ought to be guided by moral beliefs that are conducive to the attainment of our common good. It is designed to aim for the common good. Without a minimal moral grounding, it cannot attain the common good. For example, the attainment of the common good seems to presuppose that the government treats all its citizens equally or fairly.
I keep on using the phrase “common good,” without even pinning down what I mean by it. Let me digress by taking a stab at defining it. The fact that different people have different visions of a good life makes it really difficult to say what the government (with its laws and policies) should try to attain in its pursuit of the common good. Despite this difficulty, our cultures, laws, histories, political system, and ways of life condition us to have roughly common needs, desires, ambitions, perspectives, etc. These commonalities, I suppose, serve as the bases for what can count as the common good in the midst of our competing visions of a good life. I’m assuming that there are certain things that citizens or residents generally value: peaceful life, security from potential harm, sustainability of necessary resources for survival, privacy, basic rights, etc. In addition, as an egalitarian and a democratic society, its government is obliged to consider the reasonable concerns and the general welfare of each citizen, at least as much as possible. So, for me, the common good can involve, for instance, the equal opportunity of each citizen or resident to live a peaceful and secure life. A peaceful and secure life can be minimally described as a life that is not unnecessarily bothered or harmed by anyone or anything. For example, a government that is only concerned with the peace and security in the neighborhoods of wealthy residents is not really concerned with the common good. A government that is only concerned with the rights and concerns of a particular segment of the population is not really concerned with the common good. It fails to treat each citizen equally or fairly. I think that the common good from the standpoint of the government is the state of a society where that which will satisfy their common life-sustaining needs and the government-sanctioned rights and privileges are equally and fairly available to each resident (or each deserving resident). So, reasonable political discourses and activities are necessary, in order to establish justifiable political compromises. Through these compromises, the government establishes laws and policies that can be reasonably justified as conducive to the attainment of the common good.
The neutral stance of the government is also necessary for the maintenance and sustenance of an egalitarian and a democratic society. Each member of such society should be treated by the government and its laws with equal respect and worth. Our government should not favor the belief of a person or a group of persons, unless there are overriding reasons for doing so. For instance, the government ought to favor a moral belief x, over other beliefs, as long as x can be reasonably argued as more conducive to the common good than the other beliefs. For example, the government must favor the abolition of racial segregation on moral grounds, since by its abolition the common good can be better served or the society will be more consistent with its foundational political values (e.g. freedom, equality, justice, etc.).
Here’s pretty much where the rubber meets the road. Let’s face it: we, as residents of the United States, are irreversibly stuck with our political predicament. We cannot reverse the direction of our history to a time when it was a more culturally unified society or when it was significantly less egalitarian or less democratic. As a matter of fact, we ought not to retrogress to such state. Our laws, history, and political philosophy dream of a pluralistic, egalitarian, and democratic society. Our society is destined for such a time as this. Ideally speaking, it is a time when the government treats each member of a profoundly diverse citizenry equally and fairly. A responsible voter must be sensitive to the demands of this political predicament. When a Christian votes, his or her vote should not be based on the idiosyncrasies of his or her moral convictions. A Christian does not need to necessarily vote as a Christian. It seems misguided to expect the government to submit to our moral demands as Christians. Obviously, we are not the only members of this society. As a voter, a Christian, just like the non-Christian voter, is expected to responsibly and reasonably cast his or her vote as a citizen, who is concerned with the well-being of every citizen (including non-Christian citizens). One’s vote should rather be based on the outcomes of reasonable political discourses that aim to establish political compromises. The government that takes the common good within such a society seriously must consider such outcomes. Christians need to be fair to those who have different moral convictions. So, by imposing their moral convictions through some legislative or electoral processes, Christians fail to responsibly and reasonably consider the views from the other side. Remember that those on the other side should also have a say on what needs to take place. By denying their right to be fairly considered, we also threaten the legitimacy of our right to be fairly considered.
Should a Christian then leave his or her distinctively Christian moral convictions at the door before entering the public square? Not necessarily. Of course, if some reasons, other than their purely idiosyncratic religious stances, can be presented at the table, then the potential legal ramifications of such moral convictions can be legitimately considered. For example, if, for some prudential reasons, the legalization of same-sex marriage can be reasonably proven as significantly damaging to our society at the moment, then the government should consider such reasons, independently of the possible religious motivation behind the proposal to keep it illegal. A participant in the public square cannot just simply appeal to the authority of passages from Leviticus or Romans as sufficient justification for such a proposal. Many conservative evangelicals are legal moralists of some sort. They seem to think that the immoral should be illegal. But it appears that they are inconsistent legal moralists, since I don’t see them aggressively pushing for the illegalization of divorce or adultery, which they also consider as deeply immoral. Some might wonder whether one who is morally opposed to same-sex marriage can coherently support the legalization of same-sex marriage. I don’t think that there is anything incoherent about that. One can think that, from the perspective of the spirit of the law, same-sex couples should be allowed to engage in legally binding partnerships (such as marriage). Homosexual Americans are also American citizens. Obviously, heterosexuality is not a prerequisite for American citizenship. Their legitimate concerns must be seriously considered. That same person who seriously considers the spirit of the law can also be convinced that same-sex marriage is morally wrong from the standpoint of the Bible. Just as much as these conservative evangelicals do not really bother with the legal rights of adulterers or divorcees to live their lives in the manner that they see fit, these evangelicals should not bother with the rights of homosexuals to live based on their chosen lifestyles. That same person who seriously considers the spirit of the law for political purposes and the biblical demands for moral purposes will live incoherently, if he or she, as a Christian, fails to give up the rights that, for him or her, are politically valid and necessary, but morally reprehensible. So, a Christian’s personal responsibility is to live a personal life that conforms to his or her moral convictions, while his or her political responsibility is to vote based on the outcomes of reasonable discourses that aim for political compromises.
However, I think that the act of voting based on one’s moral convictions is irresponsible and misguided. It fails to take seriously the current nature of our society and the implied responsibilities for members of that society. We live in a pluralistic, egalitarian, and democratic society. They are the givens of our political predicament. It is the kind of society that our laws and history aim to establish. It is the kind of society that we ought to maintain and sustain. In a pluralistic society, people are divided by religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs. We should know by now that none among these competing beliefs can be conclusively vindicated as the true ones, at least for now. They will remain controversial. The disputes about these beliefs will remain unsettled. So, the government must take a neutral stance on the correctness of any of these beliefs, without necessarily denying that any of them is in actuality correct. I am not claiming that the government is an essentially amoral institution. A government, or at least the kind of government that we have, ought to be guided by moral beliefs that are conducive to the attainment of our common good. It is designed to aim for the common good. Without a minimal moral grounding, it cannot attain the common good. For example, the attainment of the common good seems to presuppose that the government treats all its citizens equally or fairly.
I keep on using the phrase “common good,” without even pinning down what I mean by it. Let me digress by taking a stab at defining it. The fact that different people have different visions of a good life makes it really difficult to say what the government (with its laws and policies) should try to attain in its pursuit of the common good. Despite this difficulty, our cultures, laws, histories, political system, and ways of life condition us to have roughly common needs, desires, ambitions, perspectives, etc. These commonalities, I suppose, serve as the bases for what can count as the common good in the midst of our competing visions of a good life. I’m assuming that there are certain things that citizens or residents generally value: peaceful life, security from potential harm, sustainability of necessary resources for survival, privacy, basic rights, etc. In addition, as an egalitarian and a democratic society, its government is obliged to consider the reasonable concerns and the general welfare of each citizen, at least as much as possible. So, for me, the common good can involve, for instance, the equal opportunity of each citizen or resident to live a peaceful and secure life. A peaceful and secure life can be minimally described as a life that is not unnecessarily bothered or harmed by anyone or anything. For example, a government that is only concerned with the peace and security in the neighborhoods of wealthy residents is not really concerned with the common good. A government that is only concerned with the rights and concerns of a particular segment of the population is not really concerned with the common good. It fails to treat each citizen equally or fairly. I think that the common good from the standpoint of the government is the state of a society where that which will satisfy their common life-sustaining needs and the government-sanctioned rights and privileges are equally and fairly available to each resident (or each deserving resident). So, reasonable political discourses and activities are necessary, in order to establish justifiable political compromises. Through these compromises, the government establishes laws and policies that can be reasonably justified as conducive to the attainment of the common good.
The neutral stance of the government is also necessary for the maintenance and sustenance of an egalitarian and a democratic society. Each member of such society should be treated by the government and its laws with equal respect and worth. Our government should not favor the belief of a person or a group of persons, unless there are overriding reasons for doing so. For instance, the government ought to favor a moral belief x, over other beliefs, as long as x can be reasonably argued as more conducive to the common good than the other beliefs. For example, the government must favor the abolition of racial segregation on moral grounds, since by its abolition the common good can be better served or the society will be more consistent with its foundational political values (e.g. freedom, equality, justice, etc.).
Here’s pretty much where the rubber meets the road. Let’s face it: we, as residents of the United States, are irreversibly stuck with our political predicament. We cannot reverse the direction of our history to a time when it was a more culturally unified society or when it was significantly less egalitarian or less democratic. As a matter of fact, we ought not to retrogress to such state. Our laws, history, and political philosophy dream of a pluralistic, egalitarian, and democratic society. Our society is destined for such a time as this. Ideally speaking, it is a time when the government treats each member of a profoundly diverse citizenry equally and fairly. A responsible voter must be sensitive to the demands of this political predicament. When a Christian votes, his or her vote should not be based on the idiosyncrasies of his or her moral convictions. A Christian does not need to necessarily vote as a Christian. It seems misguided to expect the government to submit to our moral demands as Christians. Obviously, we are not the only members of this society. As a voter, a Christian, just like the non-Christian voter, is expected to responsibly and reasonably cast his or her vote as a citizen, who is concerned with the well-being of every citizen (including non-Christian citizens). One’s vote should rather be based on the outcomes of reasonable political discourses that aim to establish political compromises. The government that takes the common good within such a society seriously must consider such outcomes. Christians need to be fair to those who have different moral convictions. So, by imposing their moral convictions through some legislative or electoral processes, Christians fail to responsibly and reasonably consider the views from the other side. Remember that those on the other side should also have a say on what needs to take place. By denying their right to be fairly considered, we also threaten the legitimacy of our right to be fairly considered.
Should a Christian then leave his or her distinctively Christian moral convictions at the door before entering the public square? Not necessarily. Of course, if some reasons, other than their purely idiosyncratic religious stances, can be presented at the table, then the potential legal ramifications of such moral convictions can be legitimately considered. For example, if, for some prudential reasons, the legalization of same-sex marriage can be reasonably proven as significantly damaging to our society at the moment, then the government should consider such reasons, independently of the possible religious motivation behind the proposal to keep it illegal. A participant in the public square cannot just simply appeal to the authority of passages from Leviticus or Romans as sufficient justification for such a proposal. Many conservative evangelicals are legal moralists of some sort. They seem to think that the immoral should be illegal. But it appears that they are inconsistent legal moralists, since I don’t see them aggressively pushing for the illegalization of divorce or adultery, which they also consider as deeply immoral. Some might wonder whether one who is morally opposed to same-sex marriage can coherently support the legalization of same-sex marriage. I don’t think that there is anything incoherent about that. One can think that, from the perspective of the spirit of the law, same-sex couples should be allowed to engage in legally binding partnerships (such as marriage). Homosexual Americans are also American citizens. Obviously, heterosexuality is not a prerequisite for American citizenship. Their legitimate concerns must be seriously considered. That same person who seriously considers the spirit of the law can also be convinced that same-sex marriage is morally wrong from the standpoint of the Bible. Just as much as these conservative evangelicals do not really bother with the legal rights of adulterers or divorcees to live their lives in the manner that they see fit, these evangelicals should not bother with the rights of homosexuals to live based on their chosen lifestyles. That same person who seriously considers the spirit of the law for political purposes and the biblical demands for moral purposes will live incoherently, if he or she, as a Christian, fails to give up the rights that, for him or her, are politically valid and necessary, but morally reprehensible. So, a Christian’s personal responsibility is to live a personal life that conforms to his or her moral convictions, while his or her political responsibility is to vote based on the outcomes of reasonable discourses that aim for political compromises.
Comments