I was having a philosophical argument with somebody Thursday, and we were going back and forth and back and forth. And then the person said, “You should put it on Patch.” At first, I thought it was silly, but I thought about it more and realized it is a good idea.
So here is the argument, a classic “what if.” What if a person is not happy with both presidential candidates, should they vote?
On one hand, the one person argued that people have fought and died for the right to vote, and it is part of one’s civic duty to vote. If somebody doesn’t vote, than they can’t complain, the person said. Voting is the right thing to do, they said.
The other person disagreed, saying that if neither candidate stands for what that person believes in, how can they vote? How can one justify voting for a candidate that contradicts some of that person’s core beliefs, just to supposedly satisfy another patriotic belief?
People have fought in this country for both the right to vote and the right not to vote, as really they fought for freedom, the person argued. If neither candidate stands for that person’s core beliefs, and there is no way to justify in one’s own mind either candidate, than that person shouldn’t vote for either, the person argued.
The other person said the problem would be solved if there was simply a way to vote “none of the above,” which made both people laugh. But then that person continued that it is important to be part of the solution, not the problem, and to vote for the person who will most likely be part of the solution and not the problem – in other words the lesser of two evils. The other person countered that they thought both candidates would create more bad than good, and by voting for the lesser of two evils, one was still voting for evil.
So, as every argument goes, both people walked away shaking their heads. My question to you is, who do you think had it right?