BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Guessing where a particular restaurant is isn’t immoral, as there is not a necessary immorality motivating the guess.That makes no sense. I am trying to think of an analogy for that, but it's hard. Let's see... This is like saying eating meat is moral because it is not immorality that motivates it. I hope you can see why that's an absurd argument.
BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:If someone were to cast a vote for a measure which, unbeknownst to the voter at the time of voting, causes the deaths of 10 000 people, the voter has not acted immorally - there is no morally culpability for unintended consequences.I think it depends on whether the voter has really done their best to inform themself on the outcomes of policies. Perhaps if the voter really had no way of knowing it would lead to deaths of 10'000 people, and if the voter had apparently-well-justified reasons to think that policy will have good results, then that voter cannot be blamed. But that's not what's going on on most elections. Most voters are probably unaware of all the policies their candidate promises to implement, much less aware of what the experts think about those policies. That's what makes voting immoral.
It would perhaps not be immoral to direct a tourist at a restaurant that you don't know is closed, as you had good reasons to think that restaurant was actually there and open (you were there a year ago...). But it would be immoral to guess that there is a restaurant somewhere (where you have no good reasons to think there is a restaurant) and to misdirect the tourist that way.
BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:If that is the only issue that concerns the voter, he is not committing an immoral act by voting for the candidate most likely to lower taxes.I think he is committing an immoral act there. He is literally unaware of the policies he is voting for. He is not doing his best to inform himself before voting.
