Universal suffrage = Universal incompetence?

The election in 2008 was anticipated to have record turnout due to the historic nature of a certain candidate having a shot at he Presidency (SPOILER: It's cause he's Hawaiian). Like any responsible citizen I took some time to research both the candidates and determine which one would be a better leader for our nation.  Naturally, being a politics junkie, this consisted of many long hours and elastic bands.

Just one more hit, man, just to take the edge off.

If I had just cut to the chase, the research necessary to be informed would have taken me less time than to watch a sitcom. 

On a chilly Tuesday I went out to my polling place and was greeted with a line longer than a Star Wars premier. As I waited in line I overheard some conversations, and engaged in a few. The insanity that spewed from my fellow citizens was horrifying. There were precious few who spoke of voting for their man because of his tax policy, or his stance on the scope of the federal government, or economics, or any number of valid reasons. “He’s a democrat/republican” was a common reason and is disappointing, but by far the most terrifying reason was “Because he’s black! Black President, WOOOOO!!!!” I could hardly believe my ears: Were my fellow citizens really ready to cast their vote for the candidate whose skin color happened to be darker? Since when did such a blatantly racist position become a substitute for being informed? I was indignant; why should the inane and irrational opinions of these people be counted equally with my own? Why do we continue to tolerate an incompetent electorate?

            Since the 15^th Amendment in 1870 and the 19^th Amendment in 1920 granted all races and sexes, respectively, the right to vote America has followed a policy of more or less “universal” suffrage. It sounds like a very fair and reasonable idea. After all, if government truly flows from the consent of the governed it makes sense that all the governed should have the right to influence those who rule them. Yet, the ability to vote is simply granted to anyone who happens to successfully make it to eighteen years of age without dying or committing a felony. As Thomas Paine once said, “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem to lightly”. Is it fair or just that citizens, who are not themselves competent or informed, should wield such power over those that are? Who needs this universal suffrage junk anyhow?

            Jason Brennan argues that such a practice is intrinsically unjust. He writes that “many of [his] fellow citizens are incompetent, ignorant, irrational, and morally unreasonable about politics. Despite that, they hold political power over [him]”. Just as it would be wrong to force someone to be operated on by an untrained surgeon, or be driven in a bus with someone who wasn’t qualified to do so, it is wrong to force someone to submit to the will of a voting populace which is grossly incompetent to make decisions. Brennan proposes that a form of restricted suffrage, or epistocracy, may be unjust but it is less unjust than universal suffrage. One of the principle arguments he makes is that of the jury. We expect our juries to be filled with competent citizens. In fact, if a lawyer can show that a potential juror is not competent he is dismissed. If, in a court case, the jury is obviously ignorant (having paid no attention during the trial and admitting to having done so), irrational (finding the defendant guilty/innocent based on bizarre conspiracy theories), or morally unreasonable (a Christian jury convicting a Muslim of drunk driving simply due to his chosen faith) they would not be considered legitimate and there would be good grounds for appeal (Brennan, 2011). The fact that most juries are legitimate would not change the fact that this particular jury was not (Brennan, 2011). Further, even if this same jury acted in a rational manner in 99 previous cases, if they acted in an ignorant or irrational manner in case 100 it would be no less unjust simply because they usually act in a competent manner. 

Just as citizens have a right to expect a rational and reasonable jury, whose decisions they are forced to abide by threat of violence, to arrive at decisions in a rational and reasonable manner, so too do they have a right to expect the same of their government. The government may not make good on this obligation, but that does not change the fact that it exists.

            There can be no doubt that past attempts at restricted suffrage would unquestionably unjust. Restrictions based on race or religion completely disregard the individual abilities of those excluded. To this, Brennan says "A law that made it illegal for atheists to drive would be unjust; however, that does not mean that any law that restricts driving is unjust." Even if we allow that there are some people who may be wrongly excluded, the same could be said for many other restrictions we currently accept at reasonable. For instance, there is nothing magical about the age of 18. Many people below that age are mature, informed, and responsible, while many older than that age are not. While some people being unable to vote may be an injustice, is it any less of an injustice that I should have to live with the decisions of those who arrive at the polls and do not even know the candidate’s names? Is it reasonable for me to be compelled to follow the decisions of those put in power by citizens whose decision went no further than the (R) or (D) next to the name they did not recognize?

            This is not to say that restricted suffrage is without its own flaws. Chief among them is the burning question “Who gets to decide who’s competent?” After all, if there is a test that can control who can vote based on what they know it is not a stretch to imagine such a test being perverted to restrict the vote based on what one believes. For this and other reasons it may be impractical to implement such a system. It is unreasonable to expect that each citizen would be an expert in every subject that could be influenced by the government. Still, if a system could hypothetically be designed that ensured those who went to the polls had at least a rudimentary knowledge of the issues and where they stand, would it not be better than being subjected to the capricious will of the politically blind?

          As it stands we truly live in the land of the blind. Perhaps it is time that we allow the one eyed citizens to be king.

            

Brennan, J. (2011, October). The right to a competent electorate. Philosophical Quarterly. Volume 61, issue 245, pages 700-724. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from the Academic Search Complete database.

Gay Marriage: Right or wrong, it should be legal

            The discussion over the possibility of gay marriage is one fraught with miscommunication. On the one side, opponents see themselves as championing one of the pillars of society, defending it from the endless erosion that eats away at the moral fiber of our nation. Proponents see themselves as the oppressed minority, with heterosexual opponents as uncaring and willing to pull out any sort of argument to avoid recognizing same-sex love. The truth, as it often is, is concealed in the nuance of the two arguments. I myself grew up opposed to same-sex marriage. I personally believed that homosexuality was wrong, due only to my religious convictions (I had no personal quarrel with the practice), but that was not why I opposed gay marriage. I opposed it because marriage being between one man and one woman was an evolved social mechanism that had been around for a very long time. It worked for the majority of cultures quite well, and I was concerned for the possible unintended consequences that could arise from tinkering with the fabric of our society. I longed to have a rational discussion, but unfortunately one side of the argument would point to a religiously fueled morals which have no place in legislation, while the other side would dismiss my concerns as hateful. It was not until I stumbled upon the incredibly thoughtful Jonathan Rauch that I finally got the discussion I had wished for. It was that honest exchange of ideas that changed my mind for good.

            Jonathan has written a book which summarizes many of his positions on gay marriage. Himself being gay, his positions are fairly predictable, but how he expresses them are not. What causes him stand out are his acknowledgements of the dangers.  He admits that those who oppose same-sex marriage, by and large, do so out of nobility rather than spite. He says that “Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free.” His acknowledgement of the validity of his opposition sets the tone for the ensuing argument where he addresses these concerns one by one, saying that these risks are “modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits”. He asks those who disagree with him to remember what marriage is: a social contract between a couple and their community. It is a situation which has a calming and stabilizing influence on young men and women, tying them down and encouraging them to set roots (Rauch, 2004).

            Imagine that there was no marriage for anyone. Imagine a society that does not acknowledge that there is a situation where two people could become more than close friends or lovers. Such a society sets to expectation that relationships should endure. It has no safety nets or security for the families that try. Likewise, the community itself has no social contract with couples. There is an anchoring effect to marriage, caused in no small part by society's expectations of the couple which are taught as they grow up.

            This anchoring effect of marriage holds true regardless of whether the couples involved are of the same or differing sexes.  By opposing gay marriage we are making the statement to a segment of the population that their love is no good here and that the relationships they have will never be sanctioned or acceptable in the eyes of the community. We give them few external incentives to settle down, to raise a family, to be the same productive contributing members of society that straight couples are. Should we not be encouraging strong, stable relationships no matter who is involved?

            Further, by saying that marriage is for some, but not others, we run the risk of enforcing in our youth the idea that marriage is not necessarily the desirable end state for their relationships. In order to avoid changing the definition of marriage, we erode the very idea of marriage as the ultimate & community sanctioned goal of any long term relationship.

            I personally do not see why it is a big deal who Billy chooses to give his heart to. If you do think that it is wrong for Billy to kiss another boy, consider this: Is it better to at least expect that they do it in a stable, loving home which can be an asset to the community and therefore acknowledge that marriage is a good thing that should be preserved? Or is it better to force them to do it on the social outskirts, which tacitly encourages others (who may themselves be straight) to abandon marriage as well?

            What message do we send?

Rauch, Jonathan (2004, April). Gay marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights, and good for America. Booklist. Volume 100, issue 13, page 1099. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from MasterFILE Premier database.

Abortion in the US: When choice doesn’t matter.

“I’m pregnant.” The words of his fiancé hit him in the stomach with more force than a sucker punch. He did not speak, but his mind raced. How can he possibly handle this? “I’m barely 18 and I’m a freshman in college. I don’t have a job, I don’t have a house, I don’t have…” The litany continued. What options does someone faced with this choice have? For many people, when faced with this decision, the answer is one word: Abortion. The pregnancy is terminated and their life can continue until they are ready for the responsibility. For me, that was not an option. I was left with two words: Step up. Many people would say that my actions, while admirable, were only right for me. After all, how can I dictate to a woman what she does with her own body? What if the mother’s life is in danger, or she is raped? These and other arguments have a few things in common. They are passionate. They play on the deep seated desire for liberty and equality that lives in most Americans. They challenge the one who would dare interfere in the private life of another. Unfortunately, they also have another thing in common: They are completely irrelevant.

             Before we delve into the logical argument it can help to know what the frame of mind is for women who actually choose to have an abortion. As would be expected for such a complicated issue, most women have multiple reasons for seeking to end their pregnancy (Biggs,et. al., 2013). The most common theme was financial in nature, coming in at 40% of respondents. This only narrowly beat out “bad timing”. One respondent stated that she was “so busy with school and work I felt [that having an abortion] would be the right thing to do until I really have time to have [a child]” (Biggs, et. al., 2013). About 31% of women cited reasons relating to their partner. The list goes on, but there are two things that are interesting to note. First, many of the reasons given had to do with wanting what was best for this child (or future children) (Biggs, et. al., 2013). These aren’t the responses of selfish, evil people, but of normal people who are not sure they are up to a great task.

Second, and most shockingly, only 6% of women were concerned for their own health (Biggs, et. al., 2013). While it was not covered in this study, it seems reasonable to believe that cases of rape or incest would also be small numbers. Having a discussion that focuses exclusively on these items ignores 96% of abortions! Yet every debate about abortion invariably focuses a great amount of attention on these cases. This is like having a discussion about airline safety but only considering single engine Cessna!

In an issue as emotionally charged as this one our best friend is dispassionate logic. For those not familiar with framing a logical argument, it goes like this: You start first with the assumptions or underlying principles. Then statement(s) are made. Finally, you have a conclusion which must be the only possible conclusion from the assumptions and statement(s). If any of these pieces are incorrect (the underlying assumption is wrong, for example, or the conclusion does not follow from the assumptions) the argument may or may not be true, but it is certainly logically flawed.

Let us assume for the moment that the extreme extenuating circumstances of rape, incest, & mother’s health make abortion permissible in those instances. Neglecting those, then, we have consider this:

1.  It is wrong to intentionally end the life of an innocent, non-consenting human. (Assumption)
2. The unborn fetus is an innocent, non-consenting human, and is alive. (Statement)
3. Therefore, it is wrong to the end the life of the unborn fetus. (Conclusion)

4.      

Very few people would argue with #1. Though the existence of a person may be a burden or make us uncomfortable it is not considered acceptable to kill that person unless they somehow threaten your own existence. Society calls such an act murder. If #2 is correct then the conclusion, #3, is inescapable. The only item that is questionable, therefore, is #2. Breaking the argument down even further, I think most people can agree that an unborn fetus is innocent and non-consenting (one struggles to imagine a just law that made criminals out of the unborn, or allowed them to enter into contracts).  The fact that it is human is an incontrovertible fact of genetic material; when was the last time a human mother gave birth to piglets?

 We are left, then, with the very last part of the statement: Is the fetus alive? When does life begin? That is the discussion we should be having. In fact, I would argue, it is the only discussion worth having, because conclusions about everything else follows neatly once the answer is found for this one question. After all, if #2 is not correct and the fetus is not alive, then conceivably is it permissible to do whatever is wished to it. If #2 is correct and the fetus is alive, then presumably it has all the rights of any other living human, including the right to life. All the other questions are laid to rest if we can answer just this one.

Unfortunately, the uncomfortable and honest answer to the question “When does life begin?” is “We don’t know”. We have several definitions at our disposal, but most fall short. Birth itself could be used, but that begs the question of what is so different in a fetus the moment prior to birth versus the moment after that imbues it with the spark of life. Many laws use the “viability” metric, saying that a fetus is considered alive when it is viable outside the womb. This may work well in deciding law but is quite silly in practice. Viability depends on many factors, chief among them the state of medical technology available to the mother. Imagine a woman in her second trimester in the back woods of Tennessee. Without access to a hospital her fetus is not viable and therefore not alive. If she takes a trip to New York and suddenly has access to the best medicine, her infant is viable. Does it then become alive? If so, what if she returns to Tennessee? Does the infant cease to be alive again? Going from death to life and back to death must be awfully confusing for the child!

I readily admit I do not know the answer to this question. I doubt anyone alive can honestly say they do. I humbly submit, however, that the standards we ought to measure any definition for the beginning of life are clearly identifiable. The definition should be consistent. It should be something that does not change based on geography or personal lifestyle. If there be any gray area, as civilized members of the human race, we should err on the side of preserving, rather than destroying, life. The only definition that satisfies all of the above is conception. It always happens. It’s easy to say when it has occurred. There is definitely no living human prior to that moment, so it certainly errs on the side of saving life.

Of course, it may be that the actual moment that life begins is some time after. Maybe science will one day progress to the point where we can say life begins at 3 months, 4 days, and 11 minutes. When that day comes and the future human race looks to the present, what will they say? Will they shrug and say “Well, we guessed too early and could have aborted a ton more fetuses. Oh well.” Or will they recoil in horror as they realize that we guessed too late, and inadvertently cut millions of lives short?

The choice is ours.

Biggs, A. et. al. (2013). Understanding why women seek abortions in the US. BMC Women’s Health. Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 1-13. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from Academic Search Complete database.