As this is being written, Dr. Blasey has yet to testify before the Senate. At this point, the most critical issue is whether the accusation is true. If it is, this raises the matter of morally assessing a person today for what they did in the past. Obviously enough, a person is not morally accountable for misdeeds they did not commit.
When consider present accountability for past misdeeds, one obvious concern is whether the person was morally accountable when they did the misdeed. If they were morally accountable, there arises the question of the degree of accountability. As discussed in previous essays, factors such as age and intoxication can have an impact on a person’s moral agency and thus on their accountability. The first accusation against Kavanaugh is from when he was a minor and it is alleged that he was drunk. Both factors could be taken to mitigate a person’s moral accountability, but it would be unreasonable to accept that they would eliminate all moral accountability. The second accusation against Kavanaugh is that he engaged in sexual misconduct at a party while drunk. If the accusation is true, Kavanaugh would have been an adult at the time—albeit a young adult and this would be relevant to considering the degree of agency and accountability. Naturally, it could be argued that at that age he would have full agency and accountability. If he was drunk at the time, this could also be taken as a mitigating factor because of the impact on his agency. However, as argued in an earlier essay, the drunk defense is not a very effective defense. As such, if Kavanaugh committed these alleged misdeeds, then it is reasonable to hold him morally accountable—while factoring in his age and intoxication.
Embed from Getty Images
A second matter of concern when assessing the impact of past misdeeds is whether the person was punished for these misdeeds. To use the obvious analogy, if the punishment was just and proportional, then it would be like paying off a debt. It is not that the punishment would erase the misdeed, but the person would have paid for their misdeed. If the punishment was inadequate, then this would be analogous to only partially paying off a debt. If Kavanaugh committed the alleged misdeeds, he was not punished for them, hence they would remain on his moral ledger. There is also the concern that a person could be punished for a misdeed yet remain unchanged—which leads to the matter of repentance.
In general terms, true repentance involves the person recognizing that their action was wrong, that they feel remorse for what they did, and that they are unlikely to do the misdeed again because of a change in their character (which can be as simple as learning that something is wrong). From a moral standpoint, if a person repents a misdeed, then this would impact the current moral assessment of the person they are. After all, while a repentant person acknowledges they have done wrong, they have taken steps to address their misdeed. Since it is not known (to those other than the people involved) whether Kavanaugh committed the alleged misdeeds, it is also not known whether he repented (or if he needed to do so).
A final area of assessment is, obviously enough, the person’s current character relative to their past character. If a person who committed a misdeed has changed in appositive manner regarding their virtues and vices, then the weight of the judgment should be on their current character. To use a sports analogy, while a person’s past athletic performances remain in place historically, what matters more now is their current abilities. As an illustration, while I once ran a 2:45 marathon, I can no longer do that, and my athletic ability should not be assessed on what I did then, but what I can do now. In the case of being a better person, what wrongs a person did in the past matter, but what matters more in assessing them now is the sort of person they are today.
Assessing a person does, obviously, include assessing their history. So, if a person committed a misdeed, has not done serious wrongs since then and has improved meaningfully as a person, then their past misdeeds should not completely define how they are assessed today. While some might not be inclined to apply this approach to Kavanaugh (if he committed the alleged misdeeds), as with all principles there is a moral and logical requirement to be consistent in its application.
If Kavanaugh did not commit the alleged misdeeds, then they cannot be used to assess him morally. If he did, then they would be relevant. However, the current assessment would need to consider his current character. Naturally enough, if he is lying about the events in question, then this would make the assessment a matter of current misdeeds rather than the alleged sins of the past.
In light of the most recent obviously false accusations, I cannot believe that even someone such as you would persist in tying this crap to Kavanaugh. This really is grossly unethical in my opinion. You and your fellow travelers really should be ashamed of yourselves. You’ve hit a new low. But hey, keep trying.
Now we should analyze how 3 women could be found so easily, that in all likelihood lied about Kavanaugh, and what our political system has come to, being that so many politicians seem to be in on the scam and continue the table-pounding charade. And who is paying people like Michael Avenatti, since his client admits she is not?
How do we square this with the party of equality, peace and justice?
Also, what should happen to people who have falsely accused someone of rape?
All hypothetically speaking of course. I mean, only idiots believe conspiracies. And plus, we should believe a gender.
But do we have a reason to think they are lying beyond the fact that the Democrats would benefit from such lies?
If there is a conspiracy, there should be some evidence of collusion-something the FBI might be able to ferret out. If the Republicans wanted to really put a political hammer to the Donkey, they could get the FBI to check the digital trail all the way. If Blasey was recruited or volunteered to be a liar, there is likely something that would provide evidence for this claim.
One reason would be that the witnesses that Ford herself named as being present, to include her friend, say that they were not at the party and her friend does not know Kavanaugh at all.
Ford states she could not proceed with testimony last Monday, citing fear of flying. Subsequently she testifies to flying about 5 times in the last 1.5 months.
A PHD psychiatrist indicates she knows little about polygraphs, and states she had no idea why she would need a lawyer.
Suppose you were omniscient, and could know with absolute certainty that Kavanaugh was innocent, but the rest of the world was not. How would these results be different? There would still be mass outrage, and Kavanaugh’s life forever changed. Point being that this is easy, low risk, and no one should underestimate the power of zealotry.
Her entire story, starting with her “devastation” does not ring true. A 17 year old boy jumped on her, did not get any portion of her clothes off and 30 years later she says she was in therapy because she wanted two doors on the front of her house and her husband could not understand why. 36 years later she’s in front of the Senate. Who REALLY believes this is a story worthy of devastation?
Another reason (though far from the only one), is how the Democrat party handled this. They handled it like they knew her allegations were at least un-provable, but packed terrific political punch.
Feinstein was the one who directed Ford to katz, a well-known political activist in the feminist movement.
Before all of this surfaced, Chuck Schumer et al publicly stated they would “do everything in my power” to stop Kavanaugh. Why say that before these charges?
Notice the Dems didn’t even inquire of Kavanugh about the other charges. They are so unsubstantiated (indeed they are refuted by witnesses) that the Dems know the stories hurt the case of making Kavanaugh into a demon.
If someone says something, names another person who has no reason to lie as a witness, and the witness says basically, “they’re not telling the truth”, it sounds like that is worthy of at least an investigation into possible intentional lying.
Leave it to the Dems to make a supreme court nomination hinge on what happened in high school.
https://spectator.org/stalin-would-approve/
Here is Corey Booker, indicating before Ford wrote her letter, “‘ a lot more can come out”.
https://twitter.com/Surabees/status/1046055994370002945