Does voting for Trump make someone dumb or a bad person?

[Benjamin Frank]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

So, I suppose you also disagree with Catholic Bishops or Cardinals who refuse to grant communion to pro-choice politicians or other pro-choice members of the faith? After all, well meaning Catholics can surely come to different conclusions.

[DC Al Fine]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

So intent is everything? Utilitarianism is absolutely a reasonable way of viewing morality. And at least in this very specific context, it doesn't require much foresight to realize that reelecting Donald Trump will result in the end of certain rights once guaranteed through supreme court rulings, kids in cages, thousands more dead from coronavirus, and unprecedented inside dealing. But I guess personal kindness is everything...

No, I said you overemphasized outcome, not that outcomes don't matter at all.

Even granting utilitarianism as a premise, your ethic has two serious issues:

First, it expects people to have an impossible level of foresight and then retroactively holds them responsible for failing to forsee events years in the future, and then goes so far as to consider that failed impossible foresight as outweighing everything in their personal conduct that they actually have control over. Hence my joke about Nader voters being uniquely evil. Some random Nader voter is not remotely responsible for the Iraq War but, under your calculus said voter would be.

Secondly, it assigns a disproportionate degree of blame for merely voting the wrong way in a 120 million plus vote election. The number of votes required to win the electoral college is incredibly large, and that the role any individual voter is correspondingly so small, such that attempts to argue that (even from a utilitarian point of view) that an individual's vote outweighs their day to day conduct sound faintly ridiculous.

[Indy Texas]

What an ersatz morality we've developed if we're summing up someone's value based on how they vote.

And we'd be right to, if they're voting for the likes of Jobbik, XA, or KKE. Or people who voted for people like David Duke in 2016 or Patrick Little.

My answer is, yes in 2020, with one narrow exception - if you hate America and vote for Trump because he is a traitor and is accelerating its demise, then technically that alone does not make you a bad person.

If you are an American who hates America, you are by definition a bad person. As is anyone else who hates their country.

[DC Al Fine]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

So, I suppose you also disagree with Catholic Bishops or Cardinals who refuse to grant communion to pro-choice politicians or other pro-choice members of the faith? After all, well meaning Catholics can surely come to different conclusions.

About Catholic teaching? I think Rome's been pretty clear on that issue

[Benjamin Frank]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

So, I suppose you also disagree with Catholic Bishops or Cardinals who refuse to grant communion to pro-choice politicians or other pro-choice members of the faith? After all, well meaning Catholics can surely come to different conclusions.

About Catholic teaching? I think Rome's been pretty clear on that issue

If Rome can judge well meaning people for their opinions, why can't all non Trump voters judge Trump voters as dumb or bad (or loony)?

[DC Al Fine]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

So, I suppose you also disagree with Catholic Bishops or Cardinals who refuse to grant communion to pro-choice politicians or other pro-choice members of the faith? After all, well meaning Catholics can surely come to different conclusions.

About Catholic teaching? I think Rome's been pretty clear on that issue

If Rome can judge well meaning people for their opinions, why can't all non Trump voters judge Trump voters as dumb or bad (or loony)?

I reject your equivocation.

Catholic Bishops are withholding communion from their own members for formal cooperation with abortion in explicit opposition to Catholic teaching (presumably after repeated admonishment), not a difference of opinion. This is not remotely equivalent to judging 60 million people for voting the wrong way in an election with literally hundreds of variables and a near-binary choice (which is what my comment was originally about).

[Benjamin Frank]

For those with access to the Washington Post, this is from Matthew Sears, Professor of Classics and Ancient History

But missing in both Athens democracy and our democracy today, is the question of how to hold regular citizens more accountable for their electoral decisions, too. Formal, legal accountability is out of the question, but is moral accountability too much to ask? All politicians fall short in fulfilling their promises, or neglect to fulfill them altogether. Yet, when politicians do exactly what they promised they would do — say, cracking down on migrants in cruel ways, or stoking anti-Muslim sentiment — can we not hold those who voted for them morally accountable to a certain degree?

Too often, we see supposed moderate Republicans, most of whom really voted for Trump, throw up their hands in the face of Trump’s excesses, and evade suggestions that they should take a lead role in resisting Trump, including at the ballot box. We should challenge such duplicity early and often. I’d go so far as to say we should call out our otherwise pleasant relatives who support odious candidates. Have an aunt who voted for Steve King? Let her know that she enables white supremacy. After all, if voters have great power — which they do, at least on paper — it follows they should also share at least some responsibility for what those they elect do.

The tendency of voters to distance themselves from the excesses of those they voted for does democracy no favors, and represents what I consider a type of moral hazard, a system in which actors are shielded from the consequences of their actions.

[Benjamin Frank]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

So, I suppose you also disagree with Catholic Bishops or Cardinals who refuse to grant communion to pro-choice politicians or other pro-choice members of the faith? After all, well meaning Catholics can surely come to different conclusions.

About Catholic teaching? I think Rome's been pretty clear on that issue

If Rome can judge well meaning people for their opinions, why can't all non Trump voters judge Trump voters as dumb or bad (or loony)?

I reject your equivocation.

Catholic Bishops are withholding communion from their own members for formal cooperation with abortion in explicit opposition to Catholic teaching (presumably after repeated admonishment), not a difference of opinion. This is not remotely equivalent to judging 60 million people for voting the wrong way in an election with literally hundreds of variables and a near-binary choice (which is what my comment was originally about).

And I reject your equivocation.  

It should have been well known to any thinking human in 2016 that Trump is a psychopath.
To try to minimize voting for this AntiChrist as merely a 'difference of opinion' is utterly stupid, as if a person's opinions somehow says nothing about them.  

Anybody now who would vote for this psychopath can only be evil, stupid or loony.  They absolutely should be judged, they are all AntiChrists.

I know Republicans have lied for years that they believe people are responsible for their actions.  The Trump Administration is a result of their action, they are responsible for it.

If you or other Trump supporters can't stand hearing that, I can only say you never really liked people who tell it like it is, but that's not my problem.  

If you support Trump you can only be evil, stupid or loony.

[Benjamin Frank]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

So intent is everything? Utilitarianism is absolutely a reasonable way of viewing morality. And at least in this very specific context, it doesn't require much foresight to realize that reelecting Donald Trump will result in the end of certain rights once guaranteed through supreme court rulings, kids in cages, thousands more dead from coronavirus, and unprecedented inside dealing. But I guess personal kindness is everything...

No, I said you overemphasized outcome, not that outcomes don't matter at all.

Even granting utilitarianism as a premise, your ethic has two serious issues:

First, it expects people to have an impossible level of foresight and then retroactively holds them responsible for failing to forsee events years in the future, and then goes so far as to consider that failed impossible foresight as outweighing everything in their personal conduct that they actually have control over. Hence my joke about Nader voters being uniquely evil. Some random Nader voter is not remotely responsible for the Iraq War but, under your calculus said voter would be.

Secondly, it assigns a disproportionate degree of blame for merely voting the wrong way in a 120 million plus vote election. The number of votes required to win the electoral college is incredibly large, and that the role any individual voter is correspondingly so small, such that attempts to argue that (even from a utilitarian point of view) that an individual's vote outweighs their day to day conduct sound faintly ridiculous.

Translation:  Don't blame me because I'm an anti abortion virtue signaler.

[Stuart98]

I wouldn't say stupid per se, but definitely ignorant at best.

[7,052,770]

Not necessarily either, but they don't have the same values and view of America that I do. Trump is open and brazen about what an existential threat he is to our democracy, and his supporters like him for it.

[538Electoral]

No.

[John Dule]

More seriously, Blairites overemphasis on outcome when judging morality, leads to this sort of bizarre calculus like Florida 2000 and the Iraq War, wherein one's morality is de facto a function one's foresight or lack thereof.

We have a real problem when people cant recognize that two well meaning people can look at the data and come to different conclusions, and even impute moral evil to those who see things differently.

I don't think you had to be gifted with some remarkable power of foresight to understand that electing a retard exceptional individual like George W. Bush to the presidency was a bad idea.

[Chips]

No. Voting for Biden doesn't make one bad or dumb either.

[JA]

Yes.

[AtorBoltox]

Political views cannot be separated from someone's morality

[Antonio the Sixth]

Political views can't be separated from morality, and at this point it's impossible to ignore the fact that a large portion of the support for the Republican party is driven from the darkest corners of the human soul, but a person's virtue should always be assessed at the individual level. Passing moral judgment on large groups of people is itself indicative of a moral flaw. It's also bad political analysis since it fails to account for the sociological and psychological factors that drive voting decisions, and which are the real key to understanding what's happening to this country.

[Senator Incitatus]

No. It made me much smarter than I previously was.

[HisGrace]

Well you said dumb or bad. Being dumb isn't a character issue.

I would so so at least to some degree. It doesn't make you evil or a complete idiot but it is the result of either a character defect or poor thinking.

[John Dule]

Every day it becomes more difficult to avoid coming to this conclusion.

[RINO Tom]

Political views cannot be separated from someone's morality

Yes, they can.

in’ weirdos.

[Ferguson97]

Political views cannot be separated from someone's morality

Yes, they can.

in’ weirdos.

Political views are literally a reflection of one's moral values.

[RINO Tom]

Political views cannot be separated from someone's morality

Yes, they can.

in’ weirdos.

Political views are literally a reflection of one's moral values.

I suppose if you break down their actual views, you might have an argument.  To declare that someone is not a good person because of which of the top two candidates in our party system he or she prefers is insane.

[Del Tachi]

Political views cannot be separated from someone's morality

Yes, they can.

in’ weirdos.

Political views are literally a reflection of one's moral values.

I suppose if you break down their actual views, you might have an argument.  To declare that someone is not a good person because of which of the top two candidates in our party system he or she prefers is insane.

Nonsense Tom, don't you know all Trump voters are the EXACT SAME??

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Political views cannot be separated from someone's morality

Yes, they can.

in’ weirdos.

Political views are literally a reflection of one's moral values.

I suppose if you break down their actual views, you might have an argument.  To declare that someone is not a good person because of which of the top two candidates in our party system he or she prefers is insane.

Nonsense Tom, don't you know all Trump voters are the EXACT SAME??

Yeah, you are a Trump voter therefore you must definitely be a straight old white male who never went to college and wants to ban all abortions. /s