Thought and Thesis

In my last post, "The Moral Vote", I discussed briefly voting along moral lines. This post is, in a sense, a continuation of the same idea, albeit from a different point of view.  The topic of tacit consent is not a new one. Among others, Locke claims that one who continues to reside in a state has given tacit consent to the government for which oversees that state. While this claim is important to what I wish to talk about here, I would like to delve deeper into the ramifications of tacit consent in relation to my previous post. To begin I feel two definition are in order. Both can be found in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Tacit:  "A state of a person or a relation between people that is not expressed, or one of which the subjects may even be unaware, but which can be inferred from their other capacities and actives".  Consent:  "…The place of consent is the legitimation of social and political practices".  For the purpose here the...

Is it justifiable to vote on strictly moral grounds? Rather, is one justified in voting for someone in spite of immoral acts and beliefs because of that persons nonmoral policies? The labor to craft the right question alone has taken slow deliberance. As such it is clear that to answer it will be no small task.  At first blush it seems that the answer should be no. Resoundly no! But to explain why goes well beyond the first blush. It also requires an answer to the first question. Or, at best an answer to both jointly. First I will attempt to answer the first fully and concisely.  Clearly it seems there are times in which it is justifiable to vote on moral grounds. Should one individual be so morally corrupt it seems our duty toward the body politic to vote against that individual. (Admittedly a question is begged here as to what is moral. The answer should be too obvious for those clear minded. It is that which promotes and supports equality among the body politic). I...