Ethically,
how defensible is Donald Trump as President? That is, how do his actions
comport with the traditional ethical prescriptions? These “what you should do”s
come in two distinct flavors, the religious, and the philosophical. We will
examine both of these sets.
Let’s
start with the ones he most clearly violates.
Kantian
Ethics
Immanuel
Kant’s basic principle is to ask yourself, before undertaking an action,
whether it could be universally applied. If such application would be
beneficial, follow through with the intended course, but if not, do not. For
example, do not murder someone – for if everyone did so, then, you know, there’d
be no people left. Kant also warned against certain actions which were self-negating
– if everyone did it they would cease to exist even as concepts. Lying and
stealing are good examples of this – if everyone stole then the very meanings of
property, ownership, and theft would cease to be meaningful designations in our
society. So too lying – imagine a world where everyone had to lie. Truth,
lying, and meaning would be rendered…meaningless.
Since
Trump is an inveterate liar it seems that he would not pass the Kantian test.
Many of his actions, if made universal, would unquestionably harm our society, for
example his decisions which made him a failure as a businessman or not paying
workers for their labor.
Utilitarian
Ethics
The
simple credo of the Utilitarians was to maximize good and minimize bad, usually
understanding that good is more or less synonymous which healthy pleasure, and
bad with harm. This seems to be the default ethical stance of most folks,
particularly when faced with messy choices – try to secure the best outcome for
the greatest number of people and mitigate the resultant harm necessary to the
fewest possible. The train full of passengers, and the baby on the tracks
dilemma, with you at the switch for the tracks, is a classic example. Most
folks flip the switch, preventing the trainload of passengers from flying off a
cliff, at the expense of the one child.
Of
course, Trump is not a utilitarian. The healthcare plan he has endorsed is the
inverse – to harm many millions, and kill tens of thousands at least, to the
benefit of a very few. His whole ethos of scamming the vulnerable to line his
pockets is clearly not good utilitarian practice.
Christian
Ethics
Focusing
on the New Testament, and what I think most Christians would profess is the
central ethical tenant of their faith, we are dealing with the Golden Rule: Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you. Like Kant and the Utilitarians
this is not a perfect guide (what of masochists?) but is a rule of
thumb. The rule extends across Christian sects, and is equally embraced by
Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects. We could also add, as general
guidance, Jesus’ behavior to be emulated: humility, poverty, and kindness, and the Beatitudes from Sermon on the Mount, blessing the meek, the poor in
spirit, and the merciful alongside the peace-makers.
Professedly,
Trump is Presbyterian. Yet it is difficult to imagine he would wish others to
mock him, slander him, sexually assault him, incite violence against him, or
many of the other behaviors he has inflicted upon others during his campaign
and continuing into his Presidency.
Islamic
Ethics
Typically,
Islamic ethics have certain admonishments to adherents which are agreed upon
despite distinctions of Sunni, Shiite, or Sufi. Hospitality, refraining from
materialism, humility, and an aversion to, I guess we’d call it machismo?
Desires and passions need to be curbed, in general, as we see in so many
religious traditions. Interestingly there are specific regards to how
consistently the morals are applied, and that the more you do them, the better
a person you are, which is sometimes implied in other faiths, but sometimes not in such a
clear-cut fashion. Importantly, avoiding evil deeds is insufficient – you must actively try
to stamp them out in your communities.
Pretty
clearly Islamic faith is out of line with Trump’s actions. A man who plasters
his name on everything, gets into the wrestling ring, and tries to make himself
a big man by bullying others would all be frowned upon. Not to mention refraining from
materialism – the man is obsessed with gold.
Buddhist
Ethics
Considering
the derivations of Buddhism into sects, let’s focus on the core aspects,
notably the Eightfold Path. Some exhortations of this credo are to avoid
sensuality, lying, and harming others, and to embrace kindness, poverty, and
meditation. Desire is the root of all suffering. The view of oneself as
anything but impermanent, or to see a distinction between life and death, is
not in adherence with the way. By embracing transience and avoiding desire one
can reach nirvana – although exactly how is debated by differing paths (spoiler
alert: the disputes concern the amount of meditation needed).
Could
Trump be a Buddhist?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH…
Now
we cross into trickier territory, where the answers aren’t so obvious.
Hume’s
Ethics
The ethics
of David Hume are unusual, and what prompted Kant to create his contractual
system outlined above. Hume was a sentimentalist, arguing that our ethical choices are not
merely rational, but essentially influenced by our feelings. This may well be
true, but becomes problematic as a prescriptive doctrine. From this comes a
sort of ‘do what makes you comfortable’ approach, with Hume firmly guided by
the optimistic stance that humans are innately empathetic creatures. Rather than base
actions on what ought to be, our actions must be based on what is really the
case, on a case-by-case basis. Contra Kant, for example, who may say something
like ‘always feed the poor’ Hume may ask, but what if all I have is a PB&J,
and the person in need a deathly nut allergy?
For a
Trump apologist the problem remains that of empathy. Hume’s model insists upon a
view of humans who wish to perpetuate dignity and decency. The Enlightenment Scotsman
would almost certainly not condone his attacks on a free press, or advocating killing
the innocent families of criminals.
Hindu
Ethics
This
is complicated – the most so of the faiths. In
essence, most Hindus would agree to following dharma, which is essentially the 'right path'. Non-violence is a big part of it, but not always – sometimes violence
is justified with certain provocation, for example. Self-restraint is a part of
it as well, as is notions of purity which are mixed with honesty – a lack
of hypocrisy in one’s actions is important. Some provisions are clearer – against stealing and
sexual covetousness – others more oblique, such as a general admonishment against
desire in most forms. In some ways these ideas should be equally familiar to
adherents of the Ten Commandments of Christianity as a Zen Buddhist.
Naturally
since Trump steals money in wages unpaid, scams, casinos, and possibly money
laundering, not to mention sexual coveting (with three wives and a vulgarity
attached to his dealings with ‘Miss’ pageants) he would be a bad Hindu. And I mean, come on: self-restraint?
Confucian
Ethics
Confucius’
teachings say that relationships are paramount, most notably those of family.
Parents come first, especially ancestors, and filial piety is key. Your attitude
toward strangers is seen as secondary to honoring and being loyal to your own
kin, and older generations take precedence over the younger. Still, due
consideration is needed for those around you who keep you secure – your colleagues,
for example, even if they be of inferior rank. They make your life possible, after all.
Essential to his ethics, too, is that honesty is the supreme virtue. Without it the
rest is worthless.
An
argument that Trump, with his family and loyalty, is a Confucian in disguise? No. Consider ancestor worship –
surely Donald Trump’s immigrant forbears would be disgusted by the practices
he espouses against a group which includes his four grandparents and even his own
mother. Plausibility of a Confucian Trump evaporates when we recall the critical virtue of honesty.
Aristotelian
Ethics
Finally
we get to the pre-Christian philosophy of the Greeks. Indeed, it was Aristotle’s
ethics (which I somewhat profess to be my own) which made me consider this project
in the first place. Aristotle’s ethics are achievement-based, that is, the
emphasis is on making the most of yourself. You need to fulfill your potential –
life is a race in which you are trying to beat your own best time, to strive to your greatest heights. It aligns with arête – creating a life of virtuous character
and conduct. What is virtuous? “Doing the right thing, in the right way, at the
right time.” These right actions must be done with intent to count as virtuous. Further, moderation is
essential to defining virtue, for excess and deficiency are both to be avoided.
When
I considered Trump and Aristotle, initially I paused. Was his success the most
reprehensible counter to my own Aristotelian adherence? For, regarding making
the most of yourself and achieving personal validation – Trump is undoubtedly a
case-study to make us wary. But it is the other aspects taught in the Nicomachean Ethics which give me heart.
Trump is not a model of moderation, nor, in his bumbling, haphazard campaign
and first six months in office have we seen much of the “right thing” done in the
right way or at the right time. The man may be too stupid to be an Aristotelian, to be honest.
Courage, gentleness, generosity, truthfulness, gregariousness – all are specifically
cited by Aristotle as examples of his moderate mean course of action. All are out-of-step with Trump's actions.
As such
my fears are put to rest. So long as Trump continues to be a boastful,
mean-spirited, liar whom actively goes out his way to be cruel in harming his
fellow citizens, harming the prestige of his office and the prestige of the nation, and harming the very planet
I will continual to be comforted that no person professing moral traits – of any philosophical school or of any religious doctrine – can align themselves with this wretch, without
exposing themselves to equal parts of censure for hypocrisy proportionate to
his disregard for all of humanity’s ethical norms, morals, teachings, and virtues.
Happy
4th of July.
Post Script Bonus:
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
In the world of Star Trek the ethical codes of Earth are decidedly progressive and utopian. World peace, money abolished, San Francisco is the capital... yadda yadda. However, the Ferengi (aliens that look like weird bats) have the Rules of Acquisition, which is all about deals and backstabbing. Notoriously untrustworthy and greedy, the Rules are inviolable, and from a prescriptive guide on how to interact with others. In that way they constitute a sort-of ethics. Some examples include: "Once you have their money never give it back." "It never hurts to suck up to the boss." and "Every man has his price."
Despite the promising examples above consider the following few violations (of many): Rule 2 - "Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to." (Trump Taj Mahal?) Rule 74 - "Knowledge equals profit" (The man doesn't read and celebrates the poorly educated). Or Rule 229 - "[p]Latinum lasts longer than lust." (No comment.)
