During the Trump impeachment hearing some of Trump’s Republican defenders in congress advanced various conspiracy theories. Trump himself is quite the aficionado of conspiracy theories, and is well known for pushing the absurd birtherism. During her testimony Dr. Fiona Hill pointed out that these theories had been soundly debunked and also chastised the House members who were perpetuating them. While Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have tried to question her credibility, Dr. Hill served under Bush, Obama and (obviously) Trump. She has exceptional credentials and an excellent reputation outside the echo chambers of the right. Given her criticism of Putin, one might suspect that some of the rage against her has been fueled by Russia.
There are three main reasons why the pushing of this debunked conspiracy theories is morally problematic. First, they are not true and those who knowingly push them are lying. While one could advance a utilitarian moral argument in favor of lying to achieve ends, pushing these conspiracy theories creates more harm than good—as will be shown in the second and third reasons.
Second, having authorities push these debunked conspiracy theories can corrupt the critical faculties of those who accept them. While one could argue that people could compartmentalize their belief forming, it seems more reasonable to hold that those who become habituated to believing conspiracy theories based on rhetoric and fallacies will become more susceptible to bad reasoning in general. This can be seen as analogous to Plato’s arguments about the corrupting influence of art in the Republic. Plato argued that those exposed to art causing feelings such as pity, lust and anger would be more inclined to yield to the negative influences of these emotions in reality. Likewise, those who become habituated to accepting conspiracy theories and rejecting good reasoning will be more inclined to reason badly elsewhere. While people with poor reasoning skills do provide an advantage to those who wish to exploit them, this exploitation is typically bad for the exploited and others.
Third, these conspiracy theories tend to be toxically divisive and harmful in other ways. For example, advancing the debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election serves to distract attention away from the very real Russian efforts in 2016 and their ongoing efforts. Paying attention to and expending resources on debunked conspiracy distracts from real concerns and wastes resources. One could argue that advancing such theories is acceptable because doing so helps Trump and Trump being president will have good consequences. The obvious reply is that if Trump really is such a good president, then he should not need lies to help him—the truth should suffice. Since these theories have been debunked and advancing them is morally wrong, one might wonder why Trump and his defenders keep pushing them.
One possibility is that a conspiracy pusher’s epistemic abilities and critical faculties are hot garbage. That is, the methods they use to form beliefs and assess them are terrible, hence they tend to form false beliefs. If these defects are not their fault, then they cannot be held accountable—they are simply incapable of knowing better. If these defects are their fault (they avoid learning), then they would be to blame. To use an analogy, if someone has cancer because they knowingly engaged in risky behavior like smoking, then they bear some responsibility. If a person has cancer because of a gene, then they have no responsibility for their cancer.
A second possibility is that the conspiracy pushers are willfully ignorant: they have adequate epistemic abilities and critical thinking skills to form good beliefs but elect to not use them in the case of these conspiracy theories. That is, they are willing victims of rhetoric and fallacies. In this case they are to be condemned. To follow St. Aquinas, they have an obligation to do their homework.
A third possibility is that their epistemic and critical thinking abilities are potentially adequate but happened to fail in these cases. This is analogous to a batter taking a swing at a pitch but missing. In this case they are, to follow St. Aquinas, not to be condemned—they are acting in the way they believe is best and have put in the effort.
A fourth possibility is that the conspiracy pushers know they are pushing lies but advance them for pragmatic reasons. A likely explanation would be that they believe that advancing such lies will reinforce the beliefs of a base that already believes them or persuade those who do not yet embrace the conspiracies to accept them in favor of the truth.
In the best-case scenario, the conspiracy pushers are failed thinkers. In the worst case they are liars lying to protect a liar.
Mike, have you considered the possibility that the same media sources who told you that Trump was a Russian asset might also be giving you bad information on Ukraine?
As for me, I would like to know exactly what role Ukraine played in the 2016 election, and exactly what the U.S. government has been doing in Ukraine over the past 5 years.
Let it all hang out.
Ukraine seems to have played no meaningful role in the 2016 election, comrade.
Truth will out, Mike. Maybe Ukraine played no meaningful role, maybe it did.
It still bothers me that the FBI never was able to look at the DNC server. Why not?
Well P or Not P is a tautology, so you are right that it did or did not.
Focusing on Ukraine instead of Russia is rather like being worried about what a fox might have been doing or not doing while the bear is trying to eat your face.
Start here, Mike.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/11/timeline-of-alleged-sabotage-of-trump-in-2016-by-democrats-ukraine/
Do you really think Mike is going to waste his time with that? If the FBI isn’t bothering to pursue this, why should anyone else care? It’s all fake news and the FBI needn’t sully its sterling reputation chasing stupid conspiracy theories. Seriously dude, get yourself a tin foil hat.
This website (https://www.mediamatters.org/cbs/sharyl-attkisson-cries-media-bias-her-shoddy-reporting-speaks-itself) says that website is not credible. Why should I believe her, given what seems to be her focus on conspiracy theories? One could say that this is just the media attacking her, but what sources shall we agree to trust?
Exactly, Mike! TJ should get himself a tin foil hat, like I said he should. Tell him, Mike. Tell him to go get a tin foil hat. He’s obviously too dumb to understand these things. You need to spell it out for him.
Yes. Seriously comrade. Ukraine played no serious role, unlike Russia, Russia, Russia. You’re such an schmuck. Dude, I’m embarrassed for you.
Mike, I’m sorry, but you really, really, have no idea how this all looks from outside.
I was always weak on the taxonomy of fallacies and dishonest arguments. I hope I can generally spot them, but the various terms used to indicate their genus elude me. I do know that “debunked” and “conspiracy theory” are used as a form os dishonest argument, an attempt at pre-emptive intimidation, implying “if you say this, you are some combination of stupid, deluded, or dishonest”. Is there a term for that?
The Secretary of State of the USA secretly hired a foreign ex-spy through two layers of cut-outs to ask the Russians for compromising material on her opponent. He returned with a file consisting of a mixture of innocuous public information and lurid disinfomation designed to inflame the public against her opponent. The ex-spy, who had a personal hatred for her opponent, leaked a story based on the disinformation to the press, creating the impression that there was more than a single source for the fantasy.
One of the cut-outs had hired the wife of a senior DoJ official. She asked her husband to act as a conduit to the FBI. Her husband agreed, and received the disinformation from her boss, stripped of its source and routing information. He then passed it to the FBI, who failed to verify it.
FBI agents and lawyers who were supporters of the SecState used this disinformation to obtain warrants to spy on the opponent’s campaign. It is not clear whether the court issuing the warrants was informed of the true source and nature of the disinformation. One FBI lawyer in the process forged evidence to support the claims, while others referred to the process as their “insurance policy” against the chance that her opponent would win.
When her oppponent did win, this was key to gathering public support for a two year probe designed to encumber and paralyse the working of the government of the United States.
In the aftermath, the DoJ official was removed from his post and demoted, the head of the FBI was fired for lying under oath, and over 20 senior FBI and DoJ personnel resigned, or were fired or demoted.
The disinfomation implied that the opponent was in league with the Russians, or compromised by them to become a Russian asset. This was a “conspiracy theory”, if you like, but it took over two years to be thoroughly “debunked”, and much damage was done in that process, damage that hasn’t ended yet, to individuals, to the credibility of America’s most senior justice systems, to the President, and to the credibility of the nation as a whole.
If you had told me this ten years ago, I would have considered it too wild for a regular conspiracy theory, or even a cheap potboiler of a thriller.
Now try writing an essay explaining the reasons that “debunked conspiracy theory” was “morally problematic”.
I could get into the cracks of the Ukraine thing, and the difference between Russia being THE ONLY source of interference in the 2016 election and Russia being A source of interference in the 2016 election, and all that, but I really don’t feel it worth the effort.
I don’t think I’d call Trump’s “pushing the absurd birtherism” a conspiracy theory. The accusation that Obama was not born in the US was first put forth by a Clinton campaign staffer, and it had a brief life within the Democratic party as a possible way for Hillary to win the nomination. Trump picked up on it, and kept it alive – pushing for Obama to produce his birth certificate.
How is this a conspiracy, on the part of anyone? Was Trump making the accusation that Obama and his people were secretly conspiring in some way? Or was he just insisting that Obama prove that he had been born in the US?
I think Obama played the politics pretty nicely on that one – he let Trump and other birthers push that narrative as far as possible before he produced the certificate. Touche for him, I guess – but I don’t see a “conspiracy theory” anywhere in it.
Obama’s birth certificate is parallel in a lot of ways to Trump’s tax returns. There are some who accuse Trump of misdeeds and are insisting on an audit of his tax returns. Trump refuses to release them, making the accusations all the more strident. Of course, like in Obama’s case, there are some who will conclude that Trump’s refusal to release his returns is proof positive of the claim … but where is the conspiracy? Is the questioning of Trump’s finances somehow a “conspiracy theory”, or is it, like Obama’s birth certificate a legitimate question until proven otherwise?
The term “Conspiracy Theorist” has become a form of demonization in itself. No evidence of an actual conspiracy need be present – if an accusation is made against a political opponent that raises some eyebrows, the accuser can be labeled a “conspiracy theorist” and is thus demonized, disparaged, and discredited. Along with this label is that overused term, “debunked”, which can also lack any credible evidence.
As I read this essay, I couldn’t help but think about how far gone you are, that you would make these accusations against Republicans and back them up with such weak sophistry – while all along ignoring or refusing to see exactly what you describe on the part of your Democrat idols. As CT so aptly points out, the Russian Collusion investigation was the ultimate in conspiracy theories – costing the American people over $100 million and two years of our lives.
But that wasn’t a “conspiracy” on the part of Democrats, was it? It was “truth”, a foregone conclusion. Sadly, our judicial system requires proof beyond, “Well, everyone knows it’s true”, and that proof proved elusive, didn’t it?
And yet, those who believed (and still believe) that Trump and Putin were somehow in it together to deny Clinton the presidency aren’t the sad hangers-on, defeated “Conspiracy Theorists” clinging to a “debunked” narrative.
Their truth is different They are the true believers in the truth – truth which was thwarted by an even bigger Republican conspiracy to obstruct justice in a huge way. But no matter – they can move past the Mueller report and all its falsehoods just as we did the firing of Comey, the obstruction of justice regarding the investigation of Russian interference in the election, the “violation of the emoluments clause”, the “undermining of the independence of the judiciary”, the “undermining of the freedom of the press”, “associating the Presidency with White Nationalism and Neo-Nazism”, “Inciting Hatred and Hostility”, and then “Campaign Finance Violations With Regard to Stormy Daniels” – all of which comprised the feces thrown at the wall which did not stick. They are troopers – “On to Ukraine!” Nothing is false, nothing is spurious, nothing is anything other than a true and honorable pursuit of justice – aimed at preserving the integrity of the President.