The Ethics of Voting

Friday, September 14, 2012

Roger Steare, business ethics consultant and the author of  Ethicability: How to Decide What's Right and Find the Courage to Do It, talks about how ethics shape the way we vote.

→Take the US 2012 Elections ethics and voting survey at


Roger Steare

Comments [17]


Jade, sorry to hear about your bad experience.
You would have got an email with a link to return back to the questionnaire.

Otherwise, you would need to copy and save somewhere the long re-entry code displayed at the bottom of every page.

For what it's worth, we do not spam people.

Sep. 15 2012 08:11 PM
Maiki from New York

to uphold & strenghten our democratic values - we must denounce false propaganda, abandon ignorance, understand reality, embrace rationality & endorse the truth.

Sep. 14 2012 04:43 PM

the website doesn't work properly. for one, you can't take both of the questionnaire, and if you stop in the middle, you'll never be able to do back. do NOT give these folks your email address.

Sep. 14 2012 02:22 PM

What I meant to communicate, without the typos, Is:
"Self-justifying, academic, "gooble-dee-gook".
Insights, or formulations, as enduring as the morning dew.
When does the phrenologist get to comment?"

Sep. 14 2012 11:00 AM

How does this relate to Myers-Briggs? Sound like the same thing in a different wrapper.
Ken, Hillsdale NJ

Sep. 14 2012 10:58 AM
jg8912 from CT

Maybe Muslims should exercise more self-control as well?

Sep. 14 2012 10:57 AM
Leo from Bernardsville NJ

I've previously heard variations of this saying:

A conservative is someone who despises people in general but loves them in particular, a liberal is someone who loves people in general but despises them in particular.

Would this be part of the divide you are describing?

Sep. 14 2012 10:56 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Cortland...we are under the control of dark forces from party machines, they pick us, we don't pick them.

Liberal, NY Times reading, upper-westsiders will always give the likes of Sheldon Silver a break, because they are just that smart.

Fox, kool-aid drinking, social conservatives simply need a place to belong with strength in numbers to mask their religious insecurities, the UE siders need to protect their wealth.

Sep. 14 2012 10:55 AM

Self-justifying, academic, "gooble-dee-gook". Isights, or formulations as enduring as the morning dew. When does the phrenologist get to comment?

Sep. 14 2012 10:55 AM
John A

Aren't we heavily in an age of absolute freedom and not of civility? describe cycles and the seasonality of social trends.
The man reminds me of Jon Haidt. A check shows the two seem to have competing websites: vs

Sep. 14 2012 10:54 AM
Nick from UWS

What is this? Can it not be seen the obedience of military, emergency services, police etc etc is expressed IN THE SERVICE of the ethic of care? It is NOT an ethic by itself, in a vacuum.

Sep. 14 2012 10:53 AM
fuva from harlemworld

Conservatives and "reason"? Can the guest please unpack this?
And he's asking the caller to choose between care and reason, when they're the same...

Sep. 14 2012 10:51 AM
BK from Hoboken

This topic seems silly to me. How much can we break down people by politics?! Give it a rest with te conservative and liberal stereotyping.

Sep. 14 2012 10:51 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

I am a "care" and "reason" person, but definitely not an "obedience" person. I am a liberal democrat voter.

Sep. 14 2012 10:49 AM
Nick from UWS

The "ethic of obedience" is nonsense. Obedience is expressed in THE SERVICE of the ethic of care.

Sep. 14 2012 10:49 AM
Jessie Henshaw from way uptown

He totally omits the basic evolutionary trait of curiosity as the guide to both foraging and dodging, as the central learning mechanism of "getting along".

So as to the "ethics he listed" that I responded to... it was "none of the above"

He's just quoting urban myths reinforced by that being what they asked about.

Sep. 14 2012 10:49 AM
Cortlandt St.

I went to vote yesterday. The only candidates on my ballot were two people who wanted to be a judge. Since these "candidates" are chosen by party bosses and the voters are never given any information about the candidates, their position, their education, work history, etc. why are they even "elected" positions?

Voters (unless they do a lot of research) are not even told who will appear on the ballot as a candidate for a judicial office.

I (for the first time) submitted a blank ballot as I refuse to vote for a candidate for any office when I do not know anything about the candidate.

California has a much better approach for informing the voter about the upcoming election, who the candidates are, who is "for" them and who "opposes" their candidacy.

Sep. 14 2012 10:37 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.