While the presidential candidates talked about the long-term benefits of their economic "plans" in the first debate, they also said that they won't change programs that affect current (or near) retirees. Is it unethical for politicians to shift burdens to future generations, often ignoring the long-term-debt implications, while they hold harmless the older demographic (that is, likely voters) whose generation of politicians created the underfunded programs they currently benefit from? STEVEN BUTER, TACOMA, WASH.
If the design of these economic plans is solely what you suspect — in other words, if they are irresponsibly skewing benefits toward people who are more likely to vote in the election, at the expense of citizens who are less inclined to do so — then the programs are unethical. They place the candidates' own immediate desire to succeed above the nation's greater good. But it's usually not that simple. There are (at least) two very reasonable counterarguments to that accusation.
The first is that the elderly have fewer financial options and are sometimes dependent on government programs in irrevocable ways. The second is that in order to help the most people over time, a presidential candidate must first legally win the election and therefore needs to do what is necessary to put himself in that position, including pandering to an essential demographic. Still, I think the heart of your question is based on a fear that the candidates believe that continually shifting the burden of responsibility to future citizens is a detrimental idea but they do so anyway because it's a winning strategy. And the ethics of that are obvious.
PARTY LINE
Is it ethical to vote a straight ticket for one party — for example, for the school board — even if you haven't researched all candidates and their positions? KEVIN BANKS, ATLANTA
It's not a good idea, as you're making a choice based on limited information. But it's not unethical. There are abstract values intrinsic to political parties that — in theory — should be adopted by their prospective candidates at all levels of government. If those values reflect your worldview, it's an acceptable way to vote; you're essentially voting for anonymous people who are stand-ins for those principles.
WRAP THE VOTE
My parents live in the South and are staunch Republicans. I usually don't care about politics but lean Democratic and liberal. I live in New York City and know that Obama will win the state handily with or without my vote. So is it O.K. for me to vote for Romney as a birthday present for my mother in lieu of buying her a gift? KASEY TAYLOR, NEW YORK
This is a weird gift (and, frankly, kind of a dumb idea). But whom you vote for, or if you vote at all, is always your democratic prerogative. You can use whatever reasoning you want, including bad reasoning. Welcome to America.
E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, or send them to the Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018, and include a daytime phone number.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
The Ethicist: Politics or Pandering
Dengan url
http://koraninternetonline.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-ethicist-politics-or-pandering.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
The Ethicist: Politics or Pandering
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
The Ethicist: Politics or Pandering
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar