The best theory so far in ethics is that good judgment of individuals emanates from the development of good character and that has to do with habits, virtues and knowledges concerning how one should live one’s life. Does the study of philosophy develop good character and good judgment?
I’ll take an example of good judgment as I see it: it's impractical to say that beer X is the best beer on earth but there is wisdom in saying that person W is well known and widely respected for his/her views on beer and if he/she says beers 1, 2, and 3 are great beers, chances are great that they are.

Character [moral excellence] can easily be judged by the same method as good judgment was judged.

My conclusion…a high school drop-out can decide their vote by that method and it can be just as sound as a professor of philosophies.

What more can one ask of a political candidate than good judgment and good character.

Discuss?

Are you a little gremlin today? :D

Character doesn't depend on education. I learned that from direct observation of poor uneducated people who I related to as a social worker as well as my association with well-to-do folks with education.

Politicians have to have a lot of drive to succeed, energy, ego, whatever, along with good judgement or good character in order to be an excellent politician. Politicians have to make stuff happen! A judge can have good judgement and character without that essential drive. A judge evaluates.

I often think that most people are too stupid to vote... they are so easily fooled and are ruled by base emotions!! It's true!! In the past, I have been too stupid to vote at times(I voted for Barry Goldwater for President)!

Just some random thoughts in response to your thoughts above...

Nah it is more like the right to vote should require people with common sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Are you a little gremlin today?? :D

Character doesn't depend on education. I learned that from direct observation of poor uneducated people who I related to as a social worker as well as my association with well-to-do folks with education.

Politicians have to have a lot of drive to succeed, energy, ego, whatever, along with good judgement or good character in order to be an excellent politician. Politicans have to make stuff happen! A judge can have good judgement and character without that essential drive. A judge evaluates.

I often think that most people are too stupid to vote.....they are so easily fooled and are ruled by base emotions!!!! It's true!!! In the past, I have been too stupid to vote at times(I voted for Barry Goldwater for President)!

Just some random thoughts in response to your thoughts above........

---

Just one of those bad hair days:D

Nietzsche’s personal crusade was to convince the world that post-Enlightenment morality had little or nothing to do with Christian theology:)

What kind of college education should the person receive? A B.A. a B.S. an A.A. A Master's or PhD, perhaps an accreditation from a technical college? Where would you draw the line for such a proposal? Then you have to decide which degree the person should have? Nurses, Social Workers, Teachers, Counselors, Computer Specialists, etc. and so on. Once you figure out that kettle of fish, the election is already over and Hilary is in charge. Time to leave the country.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. " by possibly one of these people Benjamin Disraeli, Alexis de Tocqueville or R. G. LeTourneau in the 17th or 18th century

Sad but likely true. I don't think that a college degree for voters would change this pattern of down fall that democracies face.

No,

Public educational biases are already apparent in Grade school.

My son's 3rd grade teacher refers to the President as Mr.
I asked him if she allowed him to call her by her first name - my son did not even know her first name, as he always adresses her properly.

My daughter's fifth grade teacher ranted about suburban sprawl.

The only purpose to extend the vote to those with college educations is to further indoctrinate potential voters. People like Ward Churchill and his ilk are biased.
Then there is the hypocrisy of Columbia in allowing "i'm a dinner jacket" speak while restricting rotc on campus. Would they give the KKK the same right to express their speech? Then you have Duke adminitrators and professors publicly convicting their own lacross players before they are allowed due process. Not to mention that teacher's unions are clearly democratic.

You can die for your country, get married, have children, drink alcohol in some cases, drive a car at 18 - you should also be allowed to vote, even for candidates I'm against.

Also there would be obvious biases against population segments that get college educated at lower rates - prisoners, people for which English is a 2nd language, certain races, etc..




Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

What more can one ask of a political candidate than good judgment and good character.

---

Well that of course would depend on the position the candidate is running for . I look for competence and leadership as well as character and judgement . I look at policy positions ,public discourse ,and when applicable voting records to determine credibility

You are correct that a high school drop out is just as competent and worthy of deciding who his representatives are as the valedictorian of Harvard Law school (or a philosopher ) . The right to vote should not be limited by education. Education too often dictates to someone how to think.

"Should the right to vote require a college education?"

I see your point on this, but I still am forced to respond with a resounding "NO!"

Immediately, I thought of three people. One who never set foot on a college campus except for the time when he was hired to mow the grass there. One who never saw the inside of a college building except once, when he watched his wife graduate. Another who took one or two classes that were relevant to his job, but that was it.

They are possibly the three smartest people I know. Their logic and reasoning skills are impeccable, even when I disagree with their conclusions. They can all three speak on a wide range of topics with authority, as they are self-taught.

It would be doing them a tremendous disservice to deny them voting rights simply because they were too smart to spend $50,000 for the privilege of having other people tell them how to think.

How, exactly, do we define "educated," anyway?

I have dual Bachelor's Degrees, one in psychology and one in English (British lit. specialty). I have a Master's in Christian Ministry, and am working on my Master's in Psychology. Yet, to some people, I am ignorant and probably considered too stupid to vote. Ironically, I think it has less to do with my education than what my education is IN and my personal beliefs.

Like I said, I see where you're coming from, but that's the great thing about this country--we're free to believe whom and what we choose.

If you or I are convinced that a group of people doesn't understand the "truth" (as elusive as that term is), then we should strive to educate those folks on our point of view and let them make up their own mind, not dismiss and disenfranchise them simply because they don't see it our way.

DK

This would also be consider something like a poll tax which was deemed racist and out lawed a long time ago.

Indeed, Tom, for the person who does not have the where-with-all and does not know all the facts…you might be a Mr. 'W' for that someone if they considered you a person with good judgment and good character.

Kindj

No, you missed my point entirely and I can only conclude that you did not read my OP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Kindj

No, you missed my point entirely and I can only conclude that you did not read my OP

---

It is entirely possible that I completely missed the point. However, it was most likely due to a mis-reading than a non-reading.

I guess I'm rather dull today, 'cause after re-reading it I'm still missing the point. Think I'll just go back to sleep... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

It is entirely possible that I completely missed the point. However, it was most likely due to a mis-reading than a non-reading.

I guess I'm rather dull today, 'cause after re-reading it I'm still missing the point. Think I'll just go back to sleep....... :(

---

Perhaps it is I mis-reading you…You said, “I see your point on this, but I still am forced to respond with a resounding "NO!"

It is the “But I am still forced’ that gives the impression that you are disagreeing with the OP, when in fact you are agreeing; which led me to think you did not understand.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Should the right to vote require a college education?

---

Hello DC:

Frankly, I think that should DIS-qualify them.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello DC:

Frankly, I think that should DIS-qualify them.

excon

---

You have a point!! :)

Here's my take.

1) It is illegal to place a tax on the right to vote. Unconstitutional, in fact. Requiring a degree of any sort as a prerequisit for the right to vote is placing a defacto tax on that right... in the form of tuition and fees for said degree. Major no-no.

2) There are huge numbers of people who, in my opinion are too stupid or too ignorant to vote. (Most are called Democrats, but we'll leave the name-calling to another post. :cool: ) But they have the right to vote anyway. As they should. Keep in mind that ignorant is is a temporary condition that can be solved with a bit of research and education. Stupidity is forever.

3) Is the right to vote based on moral character? Should it be? I don't think so. Otherwise pretty much every politician would be unable to vote for themselves. That would cause a huge mess, wouldn't it?

4) How does one judge character?

There are a number of people on this board who have named such "luminaries" as Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Linden Johnson as among the greatest presidents in history. (See the string titled 'Best President'.) I personally think that Carter is a bigot, a Jew-hater, and an Arabist who screwed up our military, created an economic disaster with OPEC, and destroyed the military and diplomatic reputation of the USA regarding the Iran hostage crisis. Bill Clinton was a womanizer and possibly a rapist who couldn't keep it in his pants, even in the Oval Office, and who further crippled our military reputation in Mogadishu, as well as not taking action to prevent 9/11 when he had the multiple opportunities to do so. And LBJ lied to get us more involved in the Vietnam War... created the Gulf of Tonkin affair out of whole cloth to justify our involvement... simply because he owned companies that had military contracts and he was making money off the war.

The same posters who hold Clinton, Carter and LBJ in such high esteem hold G W Bush and Ronald Reagan out to be the devil incarnate. On the other hand, I see Reagan as the man who created the longest and largest sustained period of economic growth in US history, strengthened the military and diplomatic positions of the USA, stood by our allies, defeated our enemies, and made us proud to be Americans again. And Bush, after being saddled with an economic recession caused by Clinton and after being attacked on 9/11, managed to create economic recovery in record time, including the lowest levels of unemployment in history, record-breaking stock market gains, growth in all industries (yes, even manufacture) increases in average incomes and benefits, etc. He also managed to fight wars in two countries which have eliminated TWO terrorist regimes, and freed 50 million people from tyranny, took the war against terrorism to the enemy, and has effectively kept any terrorist attacks from occurring on our homeland for 2,219 day now, compared with the average of 1-2 terrorist attacks per year against the USA that occurred in the 40-year period prior to Bush's presidency.

So character is clearly a very subjective topic. Who's judgement of character do we trust? Who judges whether a particular voter or candidate has the right character? We can't even agree on who should be considered a successful president based on past performance. How can we possibly agree on who's character is "good" based on future projections?

So, no, I don't think that it can possibly work. There's no standard by which to judge character, and even specific actions can be interpreted differently, and can either raise or lower the subjects character. So we cannot possibly use "character" as a standard for who can and cannot vote.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Here's my take.

4) How does one judge character?

So character is clearly a very subjective topic. Who's judgement of character do we trust? Who judges whether a particular voter or candidate has the right character? We can't even agree on who should be considered a successful president based on past performance. How can we possibly agree on who's character is "good" based on future projections?

So, no, I don't think that it can possibly work. There's no standard by which to judge character, and even specific actions can be interpreted differently, and can either raise or lower the subjects character. So we cannot possibly use "character" as a standard for who can and cannot vote.

Elliot

---

That is a textbook postmodern liberal position if I ever heard one….:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

That is a textbook postmodern liberal position if I ever heard one….:D

---

Not really. I differ from the postmodern liberal position in that I believe that MORALS (not character) are very objective and not subject to subjective interpretation.

Why do I believe that character is "subjective"? Not because of the individual's actions, but rather because different people interpret those actions differently.

Bill Gates gives most of his fortune to a charitable trust fund. The act itself is morally very good. But different people interpret Gate's character differently. Some say he's a very charity-minded individual, a self-made billionair giving his money to charity, and therefore a person of good character. Others say that he's just trying to make a lasting name for himself, and look how he made his money anyway through unfair business practicess, and therefore he is a person of low character. The act of charity itself is laudible. Everyone would say that charity is a morally superior act. But the interpretation that people put on that act makes Gates' character a subjective issue.

This is just a simple example of what I'm talking about. Morals are objective and easily defined. But character is subjective based on who is interpreting the actions of the subject and how he interprets them.

So I differ widely from the postmodern liberal view.

Elliot

Moral Character is no less subjective than the other qualities or features that distinguish one person, group, or thing from another.

Moral character development has been a topic of concern for thousands of years. Aristotle theorized three levels of moral character development: an ethics of fear, an ethics of shame, an ethics of wisdom. . John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, and John Dewey, have all argued that it is central to schooling. In fact it was central to the development of American schooling, but lost favor in the middle of the 20th century for the very reason you just stated, and people bought it.

But it has reared its head again and now ranks ahead of concerns about academic achievement or other social pressing issues such as racial and gender equality

I think back to generations that built this country (US) with less than a High School education, more-less a College degree and the answer is fairly obvious. My father's father (my grandfather) engineered the first multilevel spiraling parking lot in Austin, Texas. He never went to High School. In fact if you go back to the older generations the times were hard and people had to work to provide for the family, rather than consider additional education. But they had a lot of common sense. My mother's mother (my grandmother) on the other hand was very brilliant and graduated as salutatorian of SW College in San Marcos, Texas with then future President LBJ. Everybody now in the family, my parents, my siblings, my wife, either has a degree or at least some college education. There's really no excuse not to have some additional education, but that's another subject. Anyway- YES! We all should retain the right to vote. But as Elliot pointed out, some are willing to vote not really understanding the issues. It's obvious politicians are aware of this since some use smear tactic campaign ads and commercials that distort the facts. All politicians smile and shake hands, but really who are they and where do they stand on the issues.


Bobby