Justice

Is it right to make glib statements such as "You must vote"? My elderly mother took this statement to heart and voted in a referendum although she was uncertain at the time which way to vote. After she had voted she was very unsettled because she felt that she might have made the wrong decision - but she voted because she felt that it would be more wrong not to vote than to make the wrong selection when voting. ("You must vote" signs posted throughout the country - at the behest of the Government.)

Comments

This points to an interesting moral question concerning the formulation of moral rules. It seems to me that your question concerns over-simplified (you call them 'glib') moral rules. The assumption (by those who authorised the signs) must be that the rule holds good most of the time, or that if it is followed all the time that the result will be better than if it is not followed. Presumably there is a vaguely utilitarian calculation going on. However, when formulated in this over-simplified manner, there may result individual undesirable consequences -- your mother's situation may be an example. (Similarly, even 'Do not kill' is a good moral rule, but because over-simplified comes into conflict with the possibility of self-defense or just war.)

The rule might be better formulated as 'You should vote, unless you genuinely do not understand the issue you are voting on'. However, even this may not cover all the possible objections. More importantly, it is not as forceful a piece of rhetoric as the original 'you must vote'. Therefore, it may have fewer negative consequences, but will also have fewer positive ones.

It seems likely that no rule could be formulated so precisely as to escape simplistic interpretations. The use of moral rules in discourse assumes a faculty of judgement on the part of the moral agent, by which the rule is understood in context and in its relationship with other rules.

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Justice