A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for March 11, 2008

Should Spitzer Resign?

by Leave a Comment

Many people, including those at major newspapers and in government, have been calling for Spitzer to resign because of his alleged involvement with a prostitute. This raises the specific question about whether he should resign or not as well as the more general question about when public officials should step down in regards to illegal and immoral actions.

As it stands, it is alleged that Spitzer is facing the following legal and moral accusations.

First, he is accused of having been involved with a rather expensive prostitute. Prostitution is illegal where the event is alleged to take place and Spitzer, a former attorney general, is obviously well aware of that. As governor, he is expected to uphold and follow the laws of the state. As such, breaking the law in this manner seems to be grounds to expect him to resign. Obviously, not all law breaking should be grounds for resignation. Minor violations, such as having an expired meter or a typical speeding ticket, should not result in an official resigning. More serious violations show both a disrespect for the law and poor judgment-qualities that are certainly undesirable in an official who is supposed to have good judgment and respect the rule of law.

In moral terms, paying a prostitute for sex can be regarded as an immoral action. Some will contend that prostitution is itself inherently immoral. For example, Kant would regard it as treating another rational being as a means only (a means of income for the prostitute and a means of pleasure for the “John”). Having sex with a prostitute while married (assuming one is not married to the prostitute) seems to be a clearly immoral action-it violates the agreement between the two people who are married (unless they agreed to have an “open” marriage, which I suspect it not the case with Spitzer).

If Spitzer, like Bill Clinton, “merely” had an affair, then the claim that he should resign would be less well supported. In this case, he would still most likely have committed an immoral act. He would have also committed a criminal act. Interestingly, adultery is a class B misdemeanor in New York-just like prostitution. As such, they are legally on par. However, adultery is rarely prosecuted and is generally regarded with less stigma than prostitution. As such, people are generally less inclined to insist that adulterers be punished or resign from office. If having sex with a prostitute is worse than having an affair, then there would be less reason for the “mere” adulterer to resign. Most people see affairs as bad (although a significant number of people have them) but they tend to regard prostitution as worse. This might be in part due to the fact that almost everyone knows that prostitution is illegal while few people are aware of laws against adultery (mainly because these cases are almost never prosecuted).

The general question here is whether immoral acts justify a call for resignation. The obvious answer is that it depends on the action. Minor immoralities obviously do not justify such calls-if only on the practical ground that no one would be fit for office. When it comes to more serious moral lapses, the answer depends on the severity of the lapse and its relevance to the office. Spitzer, like many who have been in similar straits, initially tried to present the matter as a personal problem that would require him to earn back the trust of his family. Presumably, it was to be accepted that the action was not relevant to his remaining governor.

While the specific situation does not seem to be merely a private matter, the response is one worth considering. A person can have serious moral failings in certain areas, yet these could be quite irrelevant to his or her capability and reliability in office. For example, a person might be faithless in his or her sexual relations, yet quite competent and reliable as an official. Some people regard Bill Clinton as an example of this. As another example, a person might divorce his loyal wife in order to hook up with a hot, young woman. This seems morally reprehensible, but would not entail that he is unfit for office. As another example, someone might have been utterly ruthless in business and focused entirely on making money within the limits of the law. The person might be vilified for that, but it would not entail that they should not be in office.

While politicians seek the limelight and hence cannot expect to have fully private lives, they are still entitled to the same private-public distinction that everyone else should have. After all, your boss might be sleeping with her pool boy, but that does not entail that she should be fired from her job. Or, as another example, a co-worker might be an insensitive bastard to his wife and family but as long as it does not enter the workplace, there would be no justification to fire him. When the line is crossed into the public realm, then it becomes relevant. For example, if the boss is making moves on a worker or the co-worker is abusing other employees, then it becomes a matter for which they can be fired. The same applies to those in political office.

The second matter is that it has been alleged that Spitzer used state funds to pay for the prostitute. This is both immoral (theft, corruption, betrayal of trust, and so on) and obviously illegal. In this case, the immorality and illegality of the alleged act are quite relevant to the matter of resignation. If the allegation is true, then he has shown that he has acted in a way that a governor should not act. As such, he should resign.

Since I am aware that anyone can have a moral failing, I tried to have some sympathy for him. However, I find myself failing in this regard. As many pointed out, he was rather arrogant in his behavior and this makes it hard to be sympathetic. I do feel bad that someone, for whatever reason, made the wrong choice. I am sorry about the damage that has been done to the citizens of New York.

I do feel sorry for his wife and children. If the charges are true, he has betrayed and hurt them in a very public way. While it is easy for his enemies to rejoice in his failure, they should pause and think about how this will hurt his family. It is tempting to cheer the fall of such a person, but such cheers should always be tempered by the knowledge that such people do not fall alone.



ROTC and Universities


 by  2 Comments 
Years ago, when I was a liberal undergraduate attending a meeting about peace, I saw a professor looking at the ROTC brochures with contempt. I do not recall the exact words, but it was clear he was upset by the ROTC and believed they should be expelled from campus.


In the 1960s and 1970s  schools such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Brown banned ROTC from their campuses because, it was claimed, the Vietnam war was immoral.  In recent years, some people have argued that the ROTC should be excluded from campuses for similar reasons-that it is immoral to be involved in the military and the the military does bad things.


The banning approach is an unwise idea, even if those who want to ban ROTC are right about the military doing bad things.


One way to deal with behavior regarded as bad is the easy way out-simply distance yourself from those involved with it. This is the washing of the hands approach. Those who want to ban ROTC seem to have this approach-they disagree with the military and don’t want them on campus. Presumably, their presence sullies the moral goodness of the academy.


Naturally enough, this does nothing to address the alleged problem-it merely moves it away. This is a variant on the “not in my neighborhood approach”-in this case, it is “not on my campus.”


Suppose that somehow ROTC was banned from all colleges and universities. This would mean that most people going into the military would not be educated at such places of higher learning. Instead, they would be trained at military academies and thus isolated from the campuses. This should concern those who worry about the military. One might say to them “my, you think the military is bad now. Just imagine what it would be like if almost no one in the military went through the liberal arts experience of college.”


Another way to deal with bag behavior is to take steps to change that behavior. If people think the military is behaving badly, then they should want ROTC to remain on campus. That way they could provide their views to the cadets on campus and influence their view of the world-and hence their behavior once they get out into the world.


An even better way for people to counter what they claim is bad behavior is to enter the military and politics themselves. Since they often see themselves as morally superior to those already in the military and those in power, they can bring their goodness into a more active role-instead of complaining and wanting to push the military away, they can purify it with their moral goodness. Of course, that would require that they place themselves in harm’s way for the sake of their beliefs. Perhaps that might be too much to ask. After all, that sort of thing is better left to people who want to be soldiers.


Marines vs Berkley


 by  1 Comment 
The Daily Show’s Rob Riggle went to Berkley to investigate why the city wants to get rid of the Marine recruiting center. The  is  video entertaining but also raises some interesting issues.


Mr. Riggle, a former Marine, did the usual Daily Show approach to such mocking interviews: sarcastic yet blended with reason and insight.  In doing so, he raised some rather philosophical points.


Those opposed to the presence of the Marine recruiting center seemed to be primarily driven by their emotional response. They feel bad about war and violence and since they associate the Marines with war and violence, they feel bad about the Marines and want them to go away. The bearded fellow bedecked in buttons did put forth the view that it would be better to resolve matters through peaceful conflict resolution.


I also feel bad about war and violence. It pains me to know that people are being hurt and killed. I also believe that it is preferable to resolve disputes through peaceful means. Killing and violence are best viewed as undesirable and hence things to be avoided.


Some of the protesters espoused the not uncommon view that getting rid of guns would solve the problem of war. Obviously, if no one had weapons, then war would be less likely and far less destructive. But a lack of weapons would not end wars. People do not fight because they have weapons. People have weapons because they are inclined to fight. That this is show is nicely shown by the fact that humans created weapons to aid them in an activity they already engaged in, namely combat.  Thus, the way to properly address the problem of war is not to get rid of weapons but to deal with the true, underlying causes of war. Naturally enough, it is worthwhile to place limits on weapons so as to limit the extent and nature of the destruction. But that is merely dealing with the symptoms and not the cause of war.


When one of the protesters made a remark about crime, Riggles cleverly suggested that, given her reasoning, getting rid of the police would put and end to crime. This seemed to baffle the woman, but she did seem to regard it as a possibility. Once again, this shows the basic flaw in the reasoning of such people. We have the police because people commit crimes and we need a way of preventing and limiting crime. If the police were removed, crime would increase. To think otherwise would be like thinking that the way to prevent disease is to get rid of medicine.


That said, there are thinkers, such as the anarchist Emma Goldman, who have claimed that the state and the police are the cause of crime. In oppressive states that can be seen as a plausible claim. Further, there are cases in which the imposition of unjust laws have caused people to become criminals on moral grounds. However, in the United States, the main function of the police is to protect the citizens from the misdeeds of other citizens.


In another part of the discussion, a protester was talking about the right of free speech. Riggles asked her if it would be good if an organization existed to protect this right. She agreed it was. His point, obviously enough, was that the American military protected these rights.


Riggles’ is quite right. While some people accuse the military of being mere tools of the capitalist state, the American military has stood up against those who would bring genocide and crushing oppression to the world. The protesters advocate kissing and hugging. That is all well and good among people who are peaceful. But, such tactics only work against those who are unwilling to resort to violence to get what they want. Imagine, if you will, a swarm of pink garbed protesters trying to stop the Panzers as they sped across Europe. Imagine protesters in pink scarves trying to hug SS troops as they were exterminating the Jews. Imagine pink clad protesters trying to stop ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass rape around the world. They would, sadly, just be more corpses piled up before the guns.


Being a peaceful hugger is a wonderful thing. But a peaceful hugger is something of a helpless creature and can only survive when protected from people who would be willing to oppress and kill them. It would be a better world if there was no evil. This is something of a truism. But, it would be a far worse world if there were no people who were willing to take up arms in the defense of those who cannot or will not defend themselves.


It might be replied that peace can conquer war. Witness, one might say, the success of Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a reasonable point-peaceful methods can work and are in fact preferable to war. But, such methods require the presence of a conscience and an unwillingness to simple stick with violence until the end. There is an interesting story, “The Last Article”, by Harry Turtledove in which he explores what might have happened if Germany had won and driven the British from India. In the story, the non-violent methods of Ghandi are met with contempt and the Germans act as they did against others-they simply exterminate the problem.


The protesters, though perhaps acting from good intentions, fail to have a sufficient understanding of evil and reality. As sad as it is, the unarmed, the weak and the unprotected are little more than potential victims. As such, America must have a military. On the day when everyone is good and no one will wage war, then we can set aside the weapons and hug everyone.



	
						














	
	
%d bloggers like this: