Each election cycle brings with it an opportunity to study the way in which classic ethical positions play out in public discourse. Of particular interest is the persuasive power of consequentialist ethics as a voting nears. Consequentialist ethics - such as utilitarianism - suggest that individuals should base their ethical decisions on the outcomes of their actions. In contrast, a deontological ethics - such as Kant's Categorical Imperative - suggests that individuals should act according to moral rules.
How this debate plays out in reference to elections is often that those operating from a consequentialist perspective accuse those in the deontological camp of failing to consider the practical implications of their votes - of wasting the vote, spoiling the election, or placing their own moral purity above the needs of others. This is most clearly seen either in the case of those not voting for the "right" candidate of a particular party or those voting outside the other's party of choice altogether. There are at least two main objections, however, to the consequentialist logic in this case.
How this debate plays out in reference to elections is often that those operating from a consequentialist perspective accuse those in the deontological camp of failing to consider the practical implications of their votes - of wasting the vote, spoiling the election, or placing their own moral purity above the needs of others. This is most clearly seen either in the case of those not voting for the "right" candidate of a particular party or those voting outside the other's party of choice altogether. There are at least two main objections, however, to the consequentialist logic in this case.