In today's global political climate is it moral for someone with access to information to be apolitical about the current state of the world?

If you are doing no harm, I feel it’s every person’s choice to follow their own way. I have never been of the “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” mindset. As long as you are not taking action to hurt others, be true to your conscience.

I go back and forth on this myself. I find I need to stay away from the world at times and don’t wallow in details of disasters, climate change crises, debates, etc. On the other hand, I do feel responsible to try to heal the world as I am able so I am active in certain political movements, do some (not enough) social justice actions with my Unitarian congregation and target specific areas of concern for my charitable giving. This year, I am focusing on the refugee crisis and raising poverty in developing countries. Again, I don’t wallow in news of these issues but I have found a few NGOs – the International Rescue Committee and the Heifer Project – that I feel are doing great work and am donating to them as I can.

Rabbi Hillel said:

“If I am not for myself, who am I?
And if I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?”

Access is one thing. The actual acquisition of knowledge or more the decision on what is worth knowing seems seems much on the decline. It seems clear understatement to point out the lack of discernment afoot in our own country. The very possibility that within a month we may all be uttering the formerly ridiculous pairing of words “President Trump” is all the hint I need that things border on hopeless. But I suppose it’s merely a matter of perspective. At least these are not dull or boring times.

What’s a person to do? Is it okay to just step back and say fuck it to everything political. Is that selfish? Self-defeating? Just a way to feel like you are not responsible for the state of the world?
Why would there or should there be any mandate to do anything in the world, the logical part is to do for one’s self, and any interaction or empathy of another is only in respect on how it affects one’s bottom line. To not be concerned of political process that would yield no personal benefit would be more self-preservation than any selfish act. How self-defeating it is I would say it is hard to determine unless one knows a certain political process will affect them negatively, such as a law trying to be floated that would affect one’s ability to won or drive a vehicle, and thus would make it difficult to earn a living.

GQ

I wish I had a good quote from a famous humanitarian to put here. I like the one @janbb added above.

I gave up worry for Lent last year, and it stuck. However, I did not give up action. I do my part, and I leave the larger matters for others to pursue. There are those who are called to work on a much larger scale than I do.

I am of the opinion that the greatest accomplishment I can give to the planet is to be fully me. I am a work of art. Warts and all. I am working on that goal of being fully myself every day. I am serious about this work. I use meditation to strive for it. I go to talk therapy every other week. I see a psychiatrist, because I’m blessed with a mental illness, and I would rather be a sane self than otherwise. I try to get some exercise. I took up yoga recently. Plantar faciitis has put a stop to my walks. Yoga is wonderful! I’m hooked.

I vote, and I encourage others to do the same. I have one vote, and my one vote is important. It’s easy to feel that one vote is too small to make a difference, but I feel that this is just silly cynicism. I don’t have time for cynicism. I’m too busy enjoying this one, wild and precious life.

“Tell me, what is it you plan to do
with your one wild and precious life?” ~ Mary Oliver (with gratitude to Gail)

You’re searching for the lesser of two evils.
Getting involved is a bitch, but something must be done by somebody.
Isolationism was tried and it failed because nobody wanted to get involved.
People must act, as you must. But don’t beat yourself up if it all goes to hell.
Despite anyone’s good intentions, shit happens.

I struggle with this a bit at times, but in the end we have to keep ourselves alive and OK. If for you that means disengaging then disengage. In other people’s cases, this might mean a great need to be engaged because the outcome of elections could affect their ability to be alive and OK. Each person should judge for themselves what they need and how to achieve that.

Access to information in no way means you are informed…biting my lip

“It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too.” – Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

I am in two minds on this issue. It seems as Yeats said that ‘the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity’ but sometimes you have to take a stand.

@flutherother But Yeats wasn’t saying it was a good thing that the “best lack all conviction.”

It’s not a good thing but in some circumstances maybe there are no good options for good men to espouse?

@flutherother Could be, could be but I hate to think that. I know that if Trump wins, I will be strictly limiting my intake of outside news.

If I were an American I would vote for the least worse candidate but not with much enthusiasm.

It might be moral but, as I like to say, “Honesty is always the best policy, but some things are better left unsaid.” So it might be better to let the politicians handle things and keep one’s apolitical nose out of it, if one know what’s good for oneself.