Is It WRONG If You Don't Vote? (Trump vs. Hillary) – 8-Bit Philosophy

Is It WRONG If You Don't Vote? (Trump vs. Hillary) – 8-Bit Philosophy



各位觀眾,我們的選戰似乎變得越來越可怕了 民主黨提出警告,有個種族主義者已準備好他那按下發射原子彈的按鈕的小手 共和黨提出警告,一個腐敗的獨裁者將沒收你們的槍枝與自由 面對這些駭人的選項,比起支持候選人而投票 似乎有越來越多的人為了恐懼而投下反對票 然而,這個策略是否正在扼殺我們的民主呢? 這次的選戰並不是特例
多年來我們都被告知: 面對總統大選我們必須「兩害相權取其輕」 這個候選人也許不完美,
但他的對手將摧毀經濟、 奪走你的自由,
然後毀了你的一生 然而放棄投票可能被視為異端,絕對是精神錯亂了 根據結果主義者的倫理,以選舉來說,
我們不應該以動機來評價一個行為的是非對錯 而是應該以結果而論 你可能聽過這個論點的另一種說法 「投兩黨以外的候選人,等同於投給敵人」 但除了眼前的兩難外還有沒有什麼? 根據法國哲學家Jacques Ranciere所言 這樣的道德結構並不是在拯救政治,而是在摧毀政治 常有人把其他候選人比喻為現實中的伏地魔 我們常聽到他們的政治野心有多麼邪惡 結果,政治家反而從提倡政策
變成了惡魔的象徵 但是如果我們認為這些政客是現代希特勒 為了打倒他們,我們所要做的犧牲將永無止境 傷亡再怎麼也不算多
理想再怎樣也不為過… 要阻止一個極端邪惡的候選人,你會怎麼做? 你會冒著自己生命危險嗎? 還是用其他人的? 你會為此犧牲成千的市民的性命嗎? 如果需要更多呢? 你會用一顆原子彈嗎? 那十個呢? 為了消滅惡魔,你會做到什麼地步呢? 對Jacques Ranciere而言,這代表著
在國際衝突之中,可以不惜任何犧牲 不管其附帶傷害、甚至不理會戰爭法規
只要是為了勝利。 如果我們以這種觀點來看這場選舉
這對比就很清楚了 如果對手是美國的希特勒或伏地魔 我們當盡我們所能打倒他們 也就是說:再見了,民主商議
計畫戰爭,開打囉 如果你的陣營為了勝選得遊走法律邊緣
或用些不誠實的手段,你會怎麼做? 當我們被要求支持某個我們不喜歡的候選人
是因為其他人代表著極端惡魔時 我們最終也將一點一滴地放棄我們的價值 我們第一年放棄誠實,
第二年放棄正義,接著放棄真理 我們信念的價值在一年年的犧牲後,
還剩下哪些是我們還捍衛的呢? 當我們被迫不惜任何代價去支持一位候選人時,
我們能確保他負起責任? 當這個惡魔無限壯大時
我們放棄去打擊的東西也越多 各位看官,您怎麼看?
為了目的,真的應該不擇手段? 悠閒地坐在一旁讓邪惡的一方獲勝的賭注會太大嗎? 還是我們應該維持高道德標準
並拒絕投票呢? 即使隨之而來的是下流不堪的結果

20 thoughts on “Is It WRONG If You Don't Vote? (Trump vs. Hillary) – 8-Bit Philosophy

  1. This is why we need pretty much any type of voting system besides the one we have today. The overly simplistic first-past-the-post voting system always leads to–to quote Ralph Nader–a "two-party dictatorship": where any views outside the mainstream (reasonable third party/independent candidate ballot & televised debate access, expanded voting rights to prisoners and felons, campaign finance reform, etc.) are quashed with equally brute force by two private money cults (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party).

  2. Easy : not voting is wrong.
    But vote the one that convince you the most (even "third" parties!)
    Voting for the lesser of two evils is in the end…voting for evil.

  3. Not it's not wrong that's why they decided to make it voluntary. Besides, I don't vote for terrorist or their terrorist governments.

  4. We haven’t had any good choices since JFK. I don’t vote because all politicians are subhumam scumbags.
    The canidates sucked more than Paris Hilton. Don’t make me pick my poisom.

  5. The porblem is our voting system. First past the post voting is known to create a two party system.

    There are alternitives and i belive Single tranferable vote system might give us a better representation.

  6. I think we should all vote for whatever we think is the greatest possible evil. At least for a while. If nothing else, politicians getting confused as they try to explain why they're worse than their opponent is bound to get funny then.

  7. what about voting for someone you know isn't going to win? why? because you dislike the popular contenders. It's almost like not voting isn't it?

  8. don't vote for someone you don't agree with, you lose either way but at least you don't give them satisfaction that they fooled another sheep to vote for them

  9. An easy way to fix that would be to allow voting against someone instead of for someone. Then you don't have to vote for a lesser evil, you simply vote against the greater one. This makes third parties much more viable as well, allowing for greater variety in views that could theoretically succeed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *