Ivashkiv blog 13

It is interesting to consider Anderson’s comments on voting within the context of other social issues, namely climate change. But I think a very similar argument could be made for not eating meat. Anderson places importance on identity derived from a group. This group identity makes it easier to explain behavior that is not utility-maximizing but is socially and morally intuitive. Anderson’s case in point is voting. Anderson shows that there is no reason to value voting if you want to maximize your utility. This is uncontroversial. One individual vote does not really matter, making the time required to cast that vote meaningless under consequentialism. Of course then, this criticism carries into altruistic views as well. If a vote has zero sum, then standing in line and filling out your ballot is not act-consequential, and one could spend that time doing more altruistic activities. Unfortunately, voting takes some portion of time so “there is always some inconvenience. So I ought not to vote” (26). 

It is interesting to consider how the altruist might respond with the integrity argument. The integrity argument is a rebuttal to arguments that criticize the importance of individual action in climate change. The adjusted version of this argument pertaining to voting is as follows. People should want politicians that are good for society to be elected, integrity requires harmony between one’s actions, and morality requires integrity. In these ways, people are obligated to vote based on moral grounds. If they do not, then they do not embody integrity and fall short of their moral duties.

 If all of these premises are valid, then it seems like Anderson has misunderstood the altruistic claim. By using a moral framework instead of a framework that deals with the effects of climate change, the integrity argument introduces a way to encourage individual efforts to vote that has not been addressed by Anderson. Anderson’s committed action principle and the integrity argument arrive at the same conclusion: people should vote. However, the committed action principle does not directly deal with morality. In this way, bad actors could create a coalition that is committed to actualizing their bad interests. If morality is considered, then the formation of such groups is discouraged.

The question then becomes whether integrity is a compelling enough reason to necessitate voting. Integrity means having all actions integrated together. A person who recycles when their neighbor watches but burns coal for fun when their neighbor goes on vacation does not have integrity. So, while an expressive value argument would not get around what happens when voting is done in secret, the integrity argument answers the hypothetical. The answer to whether integrity matters depends on how wary someone is of people that say one thing but do another

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more