Some ethical reflection
Consider two declarations:
(1) In 2016, Trump said: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
(This seemed pretty hyperbolic at the time. Now, not so much.)
(2) Three days ago, it was revealed that although Trump knew that the coronavirus is highly transmissible – and that it’s “deadly stuff” – he held large gatherings and was slow to promote social distancing because he “wanted to always play [the danger] down.” “I still like playing it down,” he told Bob Woodward, “because I don’t want to create a panic.”
These actions – shooting somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue (hypothetical) and knowingly playing down the danger of COVID-19 (actual) – have a great deal in common, morally speaking. They’re both deadly; they’re both deliberate; and, on the face of it, they’re both outrageous, or they ought to be.
Exercises. Answer the questions of either Set 1 or Set 2, and those of Set 3.
Set 1. (a) What are the morally relevant differences and similarities between the two acts? (b) Which of the two acts would it be morally worse for Trump to do?
Set 2. Recall that Trump’s electoral opponent this cycle is Joe Biden. When Trump made the first declaration, in 2016, his opponents included Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, as well as Republicans Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio. (Trump has never run against Hitler or Stalin.)
Given whom Trump competes against, would voters be morally justified in remaining loyal to Trump …
(a) … were he to shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue?
(b) … even though he deliberately and knowingly played down the danger of COVID-19 – and even though his action may well have caused many thousands of premature deaths?
Set 3. Can these exercises even be done with any seriousness, or are the answers so obvious that it would be a waste of time?
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Though I condemn Trump for his response to COVID-19, my own response has fallen well short of what I think it would be good for people to do.
Today, I attended Rick’s funeral. It was held in a crowded gym.
Oh, I wore a mask, but I was there far too long for the risk to cease to be negligible (see the first chart in this useful article).
I came away with a souvenir – a t-shirt with this caption:
I pray that that’s all I and the other mourners came away with.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Of course, this isn’t to say that the same countervailing considerations apply to my situation and to Trump’s …
Or that I couldn’t make tradeoffs to balance off my action’s increased risk to public health. (Could Trump make tradeoffs on the scale that his action demands? I doubt it.)
Still, I remain very dissatisfied about what I did. I hope that, for his own sake, Trump also can acquire a sense of dissatisfaction.
(1) In 2016, Trump said: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
(This seemed pretty hyperbolic at the time. Now, not so much.)
(2) Three days ago, it was revealed that although Trump knew that the coronavirus is highly transmissible – and that it’s “deadly stuff” – he held large gatherings and was slow to promote social distancing because he “wanted to always play [the danger] down.” “I still like playing it down,” he told Bob Woodward, “because I don’t want to create a panic.”
These actions – shooting somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue (hypothetical) and knowingly playing down the danger of COVID-19 (actual) – have a great deal in common, morally speaking. They’re both deadly; they’re both deliberate; and, on the face of it, they’re both outrageous, or they ought to be.
Exercises. Answer the questions of either Set 1 or Set 2, and those of Set 3.
Set 1. (a) What are the morally relevant differences and similarities between the two acts? (b) Which of the two acts would it be morally worse for Trump to do?
Set 2. Recall that Trump’s electoral opponent this cycle is Joe Biden. When Trump made the first declaration, in 2016, his opponents included Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, as well as Republicans Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio. (Trump has never run against Hitler or Stalin.)
Given whom Trump competes against, would voters be morally justified in remaining loyal to Trump …
(a) … were he to shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue?
(b) … even though he deliberately and knowingly played down the danger of COVID-19 – and even though his action may well have caused many thousands of premature deaths?
Set 3. Can these exercises even be done with any seriousness, or are the answers so obvious that it would be a waste of time?
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Though I condemn Trump for his response to COVID-19, my own response has fallen well short of what I think it would be good for people to do.
Today, I attended Rick’s funeral. It was held in a crowded gym.
Oh, I wore a mask, but I was there far too long for the risk to cease to be negligible (see the first chart in this useful article).
I came away with a souvenir – a t-shirt with this caption:
I WENT TO
RICK’S MEMORIAL
AND ALL I GOT WAS
THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT
I pray that that’s all I and the other mourners came away with.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Of course, this isn’t to say that the same countervailing considerations apply to my situation and to Trump’s …
Or that I couldn’t make tradeoffs to balance off my action’s increased risk to public health. (Could Trump make tradeoffs on the scale that his action demands? I doubt it.)
Still, I remain very dissatisfied about what I did. I hope that, for his own sake, Trump also can acquire a sense of dissatisfaction.