It’s also a question of ethics. There are two general schools of thought that predominate in ethics: the deontological (e.g. Immanuel Kant) and the consequentialist (often called ‘pragmatists’). The deontologist subscribes to principles and guides their actions based on those principles. These principles are applied to the action itself, not the eventual outcome. The well-known “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is the most prevalent deontological principle cited in the U.S. Many subscribe to a maxim credited to Gandhi that “we must be the change we wish to see in the world.” These are also often called “ideals” and those who follow such guidance are called (often disparagingly) “idealists.”

The consequentialist school of thought often follows the belief that “the ends justify the means.” It’s argued that the eventual result of an action is the sole justification for the choice in acting. Many who adhere to a consequentialist ethic would warn “don’t rock the boat” within organizations, opting for stability and equilibrium. It’s the consequentialist that makes frequent use of forecasts and models. And crystal balls.

Stalinism in Russia adhered to a consequentialist ethic of “the ends justify the means.” So did Fascism in Germany. It was once better known that the fundamental problem with the claim that “the ends justify the means” was that the means actually became the ends. The posited ends were never attained and, most would argue, were never actually sought. That’s how the Soviet gulag was established. That’s how the Nazi death camps were rationalized.

The above brief summation is biased. I’m a deontologist. I subscribe to the idea the “we must be the change we wish to see in the world.” Thus, I guide my choice in voting by this principle. I do what I would want everyone to do. I DON’T try to guess what everyone will do and then do the same. That would, for me, be maddening.

From my perspective, both major political parties have succumbed mostly to the consequentialist mindset. They rationalize their policies and behaviors on “pragmatic” grounds. They no longer adhere to founding principles.

For these reasons (and others), I can only support Jill Stein and the Green Party this year. I do so in the firm belief that we would ALL be better off if we ALL did so. I try not to pick winners and losers in choosing political policies. I don’t believe there is any such thing as “win-lose” in human relationships, social or business. Whenever it’s tried, it turns out to be “lose-lose.” War is the most obvious example.

We learned this month that the atmospheric carbon has passed the tipping point of 400ppm. This means that we’ll see ocean levels rise about 2 meters within the next 40–50 years, no matter what we do. That sure sounds like a “lose-lose” result to me … where the oil, mining, and energy companies have been playing “win-lose” in denying climate change. So, it may not matter all that much who “wins” since we’re all going to lose.

Peace.