Gary Johnson is a 3rd party candidate for the 2016 Presidential Election. In a self-written article on the New York Times, he urges the American people to consider all their options when voting this November. The part that really strikes me is how he talks about considering all the options, not just on what box you’ll check off on the ballot, but also to think about alternatives for key issues our country has faced. After reading his piece I wouldn’t say my vote has been swayed one way or another. However, it does raise some serious ethical questions.
In our last reading we said that following the rules is the best way to have sufficient moral conduct, but only if we follow the rules in the right way.
Have we as Americans been following the rules in the right way? Are displaying Blind or Negligent Obedience in our current two-party system? Many people won’t even consider a 3rd party candidate because they believe no one will vote for them and that they would wasting their vote. This is Negligent Obedience. A failure to take due care when engaging in one of our most critical rights. We defined due care as operating in the morally optimal and having little too no room for doing better. If we ignore certain presidential candidates and do not consider all our options as the article encourages, then we leaving so much room for error. Purposefully ignoring our duty to vote for the best candidate is negligence. Now, I’m not saying go out and vote for Gary Johnson. I’m saying don’t go to the polls without considering every available option at your disposal. How can you be certain you are choosing the best option if you haven’t consider all of them?