A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for January 2020

The Dershowitz Defense

by 7 Comments

Image Credit

During the trial of Donald Trump Attorney Alan Dershowitz advanced a controversial argument in defense of the president. Dershowitz has attempted to explain that his argument was not as radical as it seemed. While the senate’s decision is a forgone conclusion, this defense is philosophically interesting.

When asked by Ted Cruz about whether it mattered if Trump had engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine to help his election efforts, Dershowitz contended that motive is what mattered. If an act by a president was in the public interest, then that act would not be impeachable. Engaging in a chain of reasoning, Dershowitz asserted that it was rational for the president (and any official) to regard their own political interest in being re-elected as being in service of the public good.  He noted that, “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” He did acknowledge some limits to this; a quid pro quo involving an illegal activity or aimed at financial gain for the official could be impeachable offenses. In the face of backlash, Dershowitz has attempted to clarify his original argument. While Dershowitz claims that the media and his critics made a straw man of his argument, one can review the video of what he said and see that his complete argument in full context is as the media and critics claim. As such, let us consider his original argument and his later clarification.

Dershowitz’s logic is as follows:

  1. A president cannot be impeached for acting in the public interest.
  2. Motive determines whether the president acted in the public interest.
  3. All officials believe their re-election is in the public interest.
  4. Trump was motivated by his desire to be re-elected.
  5. Trump’s motivation was to act in the public interest.
  6. Trump cannot be impeached for actions taken to get re-elected.
  7. Trump’s attempted quid pro quo with Ukraine was an action taken to get re-elected.
  8. Trump cannot be impeached for his attempted quid pro quo with Ukraine.

There are numerous problems with this line of argument. While motive does matter in matters of ethics and law, motive alone is not the decisive factor. This is because evil actions and terrible consequences can arise from even the best of motives. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And good actions and good consequences can arise from wicked motives. For example, one version of capitalism is morally justified by the notion that people acting from selfishness will create the best results.  This is not to dismiss the importance of motives, but to put them in their proper role as one factor among many.

Dershowitz does focus on motive and tries to prove that Trump had a laudable motive, that of serving the public interest. His proof is that all elected officials believe that their re-election will serve the public interest and hence their acting to be re-elected gives them a good motive (to be re-elected). This is an odd bit of reasoning and one could imagine an abusive spouse using the same logic: a domineering and abusive spouse will tend to think they are the best for their spouse and hence they believe they are acting in the best interest of the spouse. But it would be wrong to say that they are acting in the interest of their spouse; this is not a matter of what they believe but a matter of fact. Likewise, for an elected official; the mere fact that they think their re-election is in the public interest does not make it so. That said, one could say that their motives are good to the degree they believe they are doing good; but this is hardly an adequate defense of their actions in the face of misdeeds.

As other critics have noted, Dershowitz’s argument would seem to warrant a politician doing anything to get re-elected—which is refuted by the very absurdity of the assertion. Dershowitz did note that illegal qui pro quos and attempts at self-enrichment would be wrong, but this still gives politicians a vast range of options when seeking re-election: they must merely avoid what is explicitly a crime and not enrich themselves financially. In the face of backlash, Dershowitz claimed that he had been the victim of straw man attacks. He asserted that “did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt.” As noted above, his complete words taken in full context certainly seem to say that a candidate could do almost anything—but he is right that he did place at least two limits on what could be done. Hence, a candidate cannot do anything by Dershowitz’s principle, but they could do anything that is not a crime or personally enriching (financially).

He is also right that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt—just as killing a person is not necessarily murder. But Dershowitz runs into a problem here. While his original argument would, if it succeeded, get Trump off the hook, his modified reply would not—no more than saying “killing a person is not necessarily murder” would get a defendant off the hook in a murder trial.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Kobe Bryant

by 2 Comments

Image Credit

Kobe Bryant and nine other people, including his daughter, died in a helicopter crash. Since he was a celebrity, his death was extensively covered. Since he was accused of sexual assault in 2003, that incident figured prominently in the discussion of his death, with writers struggling (in various degrees) with how to include that in his legacy. This raises various philosophical questions.

People feel connected to the celebrities they admire but this is a one-way relationship: fans think they know the celebrity; the celebrity knows they do not know the fans. From the perspective of a fan, this is analogous to loving or liking a fictional character. This is not to deny that in the one-way relationship between the typical fan and the typical celebrity can be meaningful or significant. For some, their love of a celebrity is a dominant part of their existence. For others it is merely important. Because of the importance of celebrities to their fans, there seems to be a need to discuss their death in the public arena. This is to analogous to how one would discuss the death of a friend or relative with other friends and relatives. In the case of a public celebrity, the conversation also occurs in the public arena—which is both an obvious and appropriate thing. That said, one could object and argue that celebrities deserve privacy in death and that it is especially inappropriate to speak ill of the dead.

While celebrities do not forfeit all their privacy rights, by voluntarily being celebrities and profiting from their status they morally warrant others to engage with them and their past in the public arena. This is the other side of the coin of fame; one cannot profit from being a celebrity and then consistently demand the full privacy rights of a non-celebrity. As such, there is as much right to discuss Kobe’s misdeed as there is to discuss his great accomplishments. A case can certainly be made that it is not fitting to bring up the 2003 incident in the context of his death—this argument could be built on an analogy to what should be said at a funeral. While this does have some appeal, a discussion of Kobe’s life does require considering all the relevant facts—and the assault allegation is relevant to due consideration of the man and his legacy.

As noted above, the young Kobe was accused in 2003 of rape. The charge was eventually dropped, Kobe issued an apology and then settled a civil case with the woman. Kobe claimed that he believed the sex was consensual but did acknowledge that he might have been wrong about this. Kobe was married at the time, so he was at least engaged in adultery. As such, even on the most favorable interpretation in favor of Kobe, this incident was a clear moral failure on his part. As such, it is part of his legacy. But it is not just what he did then that matters, it is also what he did (and did not) do since then.

While the sincerity of his apology can be debated, he did apologize and did settle a civil case. More importantly, he seemed to have learned from his experience. Unlike many other celebrities who engaged in assault, such as Weinstein and Trump, Kobe seems to have never again engaged in such behavior. While doing wrong is obviously wrong, persisting in wrongdoing is worse. While it would have been better if Kobe had not done what he did and he is to be condemned for it, it must also be said that he did not repeat his wrongdoing.

Supporters of Kobe point, correctly, to the good he has done over the years. One example is his creation of the Mamba Sports Academy. He was also active in supporting women and sports and a supporter of education. While these could be dismissed as celebrity PR moves, there is no compelling reason to question his motives. One should adopt a presumption of virtue rather than a presumption of vice: assume that a person is acting from laudable motives when they do good rather than assuming ill motives. This can be adjusted in the face of evidence. The good that Kobe did does not undo the bad, but it does serve as evidence of his character. After all, he could have done none of these good things.

Kobe is obviously best known for his prowess in basketball. On the face of it, his skill at sports is irrelevant to his moral assessment. Being good at sports does not make one a good person. People are, of course, often more forgiving of celebrities and tolerate their misdeeds more than they would those of the anonymous masses. This is a matter of psychology rather than ethics but it could be contended that his skill in sports created a positive value that offset his misdeeds—this would be a not-too-terrible utilitarian argument.

The moral challenge of assessing a person is often complicated for most people are a mix of good and bad. One obvious approach is to weigh their actions and the consequences, though this might seem problematic to some. People tend to have a negativity bias and though many value forgiveness, there is also the common belief that doing good does not erase the stain of evil. But to reject the notion of redemption is to take away a powerful reason to do better: if good deeds do not offset the bad, then there would be little reason to try to recover from being bad by doing good.

While I do agree that doing good generally does not erase the evil one has done, I also hold that the life of a person is weighed out upon the scale of morality and all their good and bad should be placed upon that scale. On the whole, Kobe seems to have changed in the light of his wrongdoing and went on to not only not do more wrong but to do good. As such, the scale would seem to tip in favor of good. One can, of course, raise questions about his motives. Perhaps the apology was simply a PR move, the payoff was to buy silence and his lesson was not that he did wrong, but that assaulting women was too risky and damaging to his career goals. Perhaps all his good deeded were merely PR moves for his brand. If so, then he would not merit moral praise—doing right for the wrong reasons is not virtue but mere pragmatism. But, as argued above, I favor the presumption of virtue over a presumption of vice and without evidence of ill motives on his part, it is best to laud him for the good he did while condemning the bad. The same approach should, of course, be applied to everyone be they a celebrity or an unknown.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Two Sides Problem: Wicked Motives

by 36 Comments

Image Credit

While the various two sides problems can arise in many circumstances, the American two-party system provides an unfortunate exemplar. As this is being written, the Democrats are endeavoring to remove Trump from office. The Republicans, including some who savagely criticized Trump before he captured the Republican party, are endeavoring to keep him in place. As would be expected in such a scenario, two sides problems abound.

One tactic that can be employed in such two-sided conflicts is claiming that the other side is taking its position for wicked or irrelevant reasons. While it is a fallacy to conclude that a claim is false or without merit simply because the person or group making it is alleged to have wicked or irrelevant motivations, this approach can have considerable psychological appeal. That is, it can be an effective persuasive tool despite (or perhaps because of) the bad logic. One way to employ this method is to simply claim that the other side is driven by wicked or irrelevant motives. For example, the Republican defenders of Trump have asserted that the Democrats hate Trump, that they want to undo the 2016 election, and that they want to win the 2020 election by impeaching Trump. While acting from hate, unjustly undoing an election, and cheating in an upcoming election would all be bad things to do, they have no bearing on the claims about Trump’s guilt or innocence. They do, of course, have bearing on one’s moral assessment of the Democrats, but that is another matter entirely.

In addition to simply asserting that the other side is driven by wicked or irrelevant motivations, one can also try to generate the appearance that the other side is driven by such motivations. It seems natural to be suspicious of a side that holds a position in lockstep. In politics this is doubly suspicious, for the party will certainly seem to be driven solely by partisan motivations and goals (which are presumably wicked or at best irrelevant). As such, the Republicans can point to the Democrats and claim that because they all seem to be acting as a party, that they must be driven by wicked or irrelevant partisan motivations. If they were acting from laudable or neutral motives, one might think, surely there would be some division in the ranks. Interestingly enough, the Republicans can also make the claim that if the Democrats had fair rather than foul motives, at least some Republicans would join with them. But since the Democrats have only the Democrats and they are all together on the matter, they must surely be driven by wicked motives.

While the Republicans cannot ensure that the Democrats all stick together, they can ensure that they stick together and that none of them break ranks. While the Republicans might want some Democrats to join them, there is also an advantage in acting in ways that makes this unlikely—they can push the notion that the Democrats are up to no good and are unreasonable because none of them are willing to work with the Republicans. Since the Republicans do not need any Democrats in this matter, this is a viable option. In contrast, the Democrats do want to win over some Republicans—they gain more by getting Trump removed than whatever political points they might score by accusing the Republicans of siding with Trump for wicked motives.

When one side acts to create this sharp division and use it for rhetorical purposes, one might think that this would be problematic for them. After all, when the Republicans all side together and leave the Democrats on the other side and then accuse the Democrats of being wicked partisans, an objective observer would notice that the same charge would seem to hold against the Republicans—after all, they are actively creating the partisan divide they are accusing the Democrats of creating.

Another two-sides problem is that a side will almost always regard its side as more credible and laudable than the other side; so, the Republicans will see the Democrats as wickedly partisan while the Democrats will see the Republicans that way. This allows each side to, oddly, accuse the other of wicked motives by pointing to the partisan division while conveniently ignoring their own roll in the matter.

This split does raise the usual moral problems of how people should, morally, divide on an issue such as impeachment. As noted in earlier essays, one could argue that truth an morality matter not in such cases: all that matters is victory for your side over the other side—which is yet another two-sides problem.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Impeachment Trial

by 43 Comments

After the house sent the articles of impeachment to the senate, the senators were sworn in and the trial began. As would be expected, it has played out along party lines (although Collins did vote with the Democrats on one losing vote). While the Constitution does not provide an extensive guide to the process, the oath that the senators take is informative: “”Do you solemnly swear, that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws: So help you God?” This oath commits the senators to “impartial justice” defined by the “constitution and laws.”

Image Credit

Some Republican senators, such as Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham, have been quite clear that they made their decision before the trial even began. McConnell was quite explicit that he would be working with the White House to ensure that that Trump is not removed from office—he did not make even the slightest effort at pretending to be impartial. Some Democrats have been accused of prejudging Trump, but McConnell seems unmatched in this matter. Regardless of party, to the degree that a senator has committed to their position based on partiality, they have failed to live up their oath.

The senators are also supposed to use the “constitution and laws” as their standard of justice. While the Republicans are trying a variety of strategies, the one that seem most consistent with these standards are the arguments that Trump broke no laws, that Trump acted constitutionally and that the Democrats are acting unconstitutionally. As would be expected, people tend to accept or reject these arguments along party lines. One that has no merit is the argument that Trump should not be impeached because that would nullify the 2016 election (and the 2020 election, assuming Trump would not be able to run again if he was removed from office).

Impeachment is constitutional—this is evident from the fact that it is laid out in the Constitution; so that line of defense has no merit. While it is certainly tempting to see it as nullifying the election (after all, the president could be removed from office) to accept this reasoning would be to nullify the impeachment process: if impeachment and removal nullifies an election and elections should not be nullified, then no one should ever be impeached and removed. While this would defend Trump, it would also do away with impeachment and removal entirely.

The Republicans can also be seen as claiming that the Democrats have a wicked motivation (nullifying the election they lost) and hence their case has no merit. The problem with this argument is that the motivation of the Democrats is irrelevant to the legitimacy of their case. If the Republicans can show that there is no constitutional or legal basis to the articles of impeachment and can provide evidence of the Democrat’s wicked motivations, then they can certainly conclude the impeachment is unfounded and the Democrats have wicked motivations. But the motivations of the Democrats, however wicked, are not relevant to assessing the case against Trump by the standards of “impartial justice.” One could, of course, use the wicked motivations of certain senate Democrats to argue they are not impartial; but it is even easier to show that certain senate Republicans are not impartial—since they have made clear statements to that effect on camera. But such exercises would be largely pointless: there are no penalties specified for breaking the oath, though there might be some political cost for doing so in an egregious manner.

A case can certainly be made the Republicans are interfering with “impartial justice” by trying to prevent witnesses from testifying and by blocking new evidence; the legal process of discovery does set a clear precedent for new evidence and witnesses in a trial. Impartial justice would seem to require considering all available relevant evidence whether it favors or harms Trump. The Republican leadership understands that witnesses and evidence would be damaging to Trump—the more Americans learn about the matter, the more they have come to support impeachment and even removal. While the Republicans will almost certainly all vote in Trump’s favor regardless of any new evidence or witnesses, they do get that the 2020 election might be impacted by what the public sees and hears in the trial. Hence, McConnel wants the trial to be as short as possible with no additional revelations about Trump’s misdeeds. Which is to say that he does not want impartial justice; he wants his side to win or at least he wants to minimize the damage done to his Party.

It can be argued that the Democrats are just out to score political points for 2020. Even if this is true, it does not entail that Trump should not be removed from office. After all, why the Democrats are pushing impeachment has not relevance to whether Trump should be removed or not. For example, I might want a professor who sexually harasses students and creates a hostile classroom for conservative students removed because I want a buddy of mine to get their job. But if the professor is, in fact, sexually harassing students and creating a hostile classroom for conservative students, then they should still be removed. While one could say that this would “nullify” their hiring (the vote of the hiring committee, etc.), such an objection would entail that professors should never be removed, no matter what they might do—which would be absurd.

If one accepts the idea that impartial justice should be done, then the evidence seems damning for Trump. Naturally, those defending Trump will assert that I am just biased against him—but one struggles to imagine what sort of case would ever convince them. But if we reject the idea of impartial justice and simply take it as a political battle between the dominant parties, then talk of justice, the constitution and law are but empty words.  It would just be a matter of winning by having more votes, regardless of the case made for or against the president. It could be said that this is an honest approach: it is just a struggle for power between two groups of awful people and one almost must pick a side because they are the only two available.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

MLK Day 2020

by 5 Comments

Image Credit

Following the general trend in the media, I will take Martin Luther King, junior Day to reflect on race in America. When King wrote his “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963, he compared that present with the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. While matters had obvious improved, King pointed out that segregation, discrimination and poverty remained blights on the American dream. So how are things in 2020?

While there have been efforts to address segregation in American public schools, the overall picture is grim: segregation “has soared in American schools.” Segregation in housing also remains a problem. The current segregation is not a matter of laws that impose segregation; rather it arises from policies, practices and behavior that creates segregation in many ways. While some might be tempted to lay all the blame on white conservatives, white liberals are also instrumental in the preservation and expansion of segregation. From a moral standpoint it can be argued that what white liberals do is morally worse: in addition to the wrongness of contributing to segregation, they are also acting in violation of their professed principles. It should be noted that there are both liberals and conservatives who take positive action against segregation; though liberals talk the most about it. Yet little is done overall.

The United States professes equality as a core value while also endorsing the notions of success based on merit within a free and fair system of competition. These ideals perish instantly when exposed to muck of reality—discrimination is a serious problem in the United States, so much so that Human Rights Watch is, well, watching us. The Trump administration has also made it clear that it is, at best, indifferent to discrimination and actively engages in discriminatory actions while advancing discriminatory policies. While these mainly target foreigners, even these have a spillover effect on Americans. On a positive note, hate crimes have decreased in number. On the minus side, the number of violent hate crimes has increased. White nationalism has also become far more open, primarily because the Trump administration is, at best, ambivalent about the matter. While Trump himself seems to lack any coherent ideology, Stephen Miller clearly has one and has been doing his best to implement it. While some might contend that he cannot be a white nationalist, he most evidently is.

While the United States is the wealthiest nation in the world, poverty is still a serious problem. Unemployment is at a record low and the stock market has generally been doing great, but the benefits of the economy flow upward and concentrate at the top. The overall poverty rate in the United States is 11.8%, using the Federal government’s definition of an income of $25,700 for a family of four. 29.9% of the population lives close to poverty (incomes less than twice the poverty level). 5.3% of the population is in deep poverty, making less than 50% of the poverty level of income.

 While the exact income that counts as poverty can be debated. MIT has created a very informative living wage calculator: the income required for a household to earn to support itself. Where I live (Leon County) an adult with no children could support themselves on $24,763. But a family of four would need $64,047 per year if both adults worked or $52,333 if only one does. As such, a family meeting the Federal definition would be in dire straits indeed. Poverty, as one would expect, is not distributed evenly and non-whites have the highest poverty levels; in some cases, 2-2.5 times that of white Americans.

While some might be tempted to chalk up these poverty levels to various failings on the part of the poor, such as laziness, many of the poor are elderly (9.7%), the disabled or children (16.2%). There are also the working poor who compose 6.3% of the labor force. It must also be noted that falling below the living wage in an area means that a person is poor, then many full-time workers are poor. This would, of course, create a debate about what it is to be poor and why people are poor—a debate fraught with ideological bias. But it is fair to say that for whatever reasons people are poor, poverty is still a serious problem.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Connotation Theft

by 3 Comments

Image Credit

The denotation of a word is what it literally means. The connotation is the emotional loading of the word, which can be negative or positive—how the word makes you feel. To illustrate, “swarm” and “infestation” have very strong negative connotations. Whether the connotation is negative or positive depends on many factors, including how the audience feels about the word. For example, the connotation of “socialism” can vary greatly between people. Two words can have the same denotation, but very different connotations. For example, the slang term “pig” and the word “police” have the same denotation, but very different connotations. As would be expected, rhetoric generally makes use of the influence of connotation in order to affect how people feel.

Words that have strong connotations can be very powerful rhetorical tools. As with any powerful tool, people will want to use it—even if they must steal it. Hence, connotation theft.  A word can derive its connotation from a variety of factors, such as historical context, and this is how the connotation is earned. If the word is then knowingly used for that connotation in a manner inconsistent with those factors, then the connotation has been stolen. This can also involve intentionally ignoring a word’s denotation in order to use its connotation.  A person can also unintentionally steal connotation by being unaware that their use is inconsistent with the factors, such as the historical context or denotation, that give the word the connotation in question.

Put into a template, connotation theft looks like this:

1. Word W has connotation C because of P,Q and R.

2. Word W is used in situation S because it has connotation C.

3. But S is inconsistent with P, Q, R.

A good example for the discussion to follow is the word “fascism.” The word has a strong negative connotation primarily because of the Nazis and their numerous crimes. To a far lesser extent, fascist Italy and Spain also contributed to this negative connotation. Because of the strong negative connotation of “fascism” calling something “fascism” or associating it with fascism can be an effective rhetorical tactic. That is, it can generate negative feelings towards the thing in question and these can influence what people think. Because of this, it is not surprising that the term is often used in American politics. George W. Bush’s administration was called fascist. Bush in turn used the term “Islamofascism” (which is distinct from Islamic fascism) in an effort to create negative feelings. Obama was called a fascist and, of course, Trump is being called a fascist now. Interestingly, the left is now being called fascist and some claim that the Nazis were leftists (mainly because of the “socialism” in their name). One might thus agree with a quote attributed to George Orwell, that “[T]he word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'” This, it could be argued, arose from connotation theft: using the word for its negative connotation while ignoring its denotation and historical context served to split them apart.

Orwell’s assertion shows one of the problems with connotation theft: it can rob a word of its denotation and historical context, making it a mere rhetorical tool to be used as desired. Another problem is that connotation theft is a deceit—the emotional power of the word is exploited by intentionally misapplying the word. For example, some on the right assert that the left in general and the socialists in particular are fascists. Since most people feel that fascism is bad, those that accept this assertion will feel that the left is bad. The problem is that this is a deceit. First, while the National Socialists used the word “socialist”, they were neither socialists nor leftists. Fascism is, in fact, a reaction to and an opponent of the left. Second, the negative connotation of “fascism” does not arise from whatever socialist style programs or policies the Nazis or other fascists might have implemented. It arises from the specifically fascist parts of fascism and the Nazi’s multitude of crimes aimed at creating a white German nation. As such, applying the term “fascist” to the left is an attempt at connotation theft or an act of ignorance. This is most certainly not to claim that the left is without sin, simply that fascism is a sin of the right rather than the left.

The main defense against being deceived by connotation theft is to be aware of the factors that give a word its emotional power, such as its proper denotation and historical context. For example, when someone or some group is seriously accused of being fascist, one should consider carefully if the word truly applies or, as Orwell said, the word is just signifying something the speaker finds undesirable and hopes you will too.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: