Examples Of Act Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that aims to maximize total societal utility. Consequently, in determining whether or not there is a moral duty to vote, utilitarians would factor in everyone interests — this includes those ineligible to vote, noncitizens, and future people — to arrive at the total utility calculation.
Two types of utilitarians exist. 1) Act utilitarians, who act to maximize total social utility, and 2) Rule utilitarians, who advocate acting according to rules that are expected to maximize total social utility over time.
Act-utilitarians would only advocate voting in circumstances in which the action of voting is likely to make a difference — otherwise, why not spend the time it would take for you to vote to …show more content…
From an act-utilitarian point of view you would be a harming society by not voting correctly. Jason Brennan argues that voting badly actually constitutes a “collectively harmful activity,” and therefore voters who will elect bad candidates without justification should stay at home.
But how does one determine what the correct vote is? If voting consisted of pulling a lever to ensure that the economy will improve, poverty will decrease and jobs will be gained, of course we should go cast our vote if it would help ensure this outcome is selected. But voting is not this cut and dry. Often times, both parties promise to do all these things, but in different ways.
To justify a moral duty to vote, utilitarians would need to consider if a “correct” vote exists at all. Since the median voter theorem plays a role in any two-party political process by forcing candidates to adopt more moderate positions, parties’ platforms look similar when it actually comes time to vote. If the policies implemented will end up being virtually the same, one could argue that the socially optimal action would be to use those 15 minutes to do anything else that would benefit society besides
Two types of utilitarians exist. 1) Act utilitarians, who act to maximize total social utility, and 2) Rule utilitarians, who advocate acting according to rules that are expected to maximize total social utility over time.
Act-utilitarians would only advocate voting in circumstances in which the action of voting is likely to make a difference — otherwise, why not spend the time it would take for you to vote to …show more content…
From an act-utilitarian point of view you would be a harming society by not voting correctly. Jason Brennan argues that voting badly actually constitutes a “collectively harmful activity,” and therefore voters who will elect bad candidates without justification should stay at home.
But how does one determine what the correct vote is? If voting consisted of pulling a lever to ensure that the economy will improve, poverty will decrease and jobs will be gained, of course we should go cast our vote if it would help ensure this outcome is selected. But voting is not this cut and dry. Often times, both parties promise to do all these things, but in different ways.
To justify a moral duty to vote, utilitarians would need to consider if a “correct” vote exists at all. Since the median voter theorem plays a role in any two-party political process by forcing candidates to adopt more moderate positions, parties’ platforms look similar when it actually comes time to vote. If the policies implemented will end up being virtually the same, one could argue that the socially optimal action would be to use those 15 minutes to do anything else that would benefit society besides