Friday, November 04, 2005
Let's Talk Ethics
Ethics are not intuitive. Many times actions are morally ambiguous. To say that something is unethical is not enough, you must substantiate that argument just as you would any other factual claim. Emmanuel Kant says the only necessary ethical truth is that you must treat people as ends in themselves, never use other people as means to your own end. Utilitarianism says as long as the consequences provide the most good for the most people, it’s fine to break a few eggs along the way. This treats the overall happiness of a society as the base judgment for ethics. Divine Command theory states that things are ethical or unethical because god says so.
Ok, now that you’ve had a crash course in college philosophy, let’s talk politics. Alito’s nomination has sparked debate in the Senate as to whether Senators can ethically consider Alito’s ideology in choosing how to vote on him or whether qualifications must hold all the weight. I suppose it depends on which ethical benchmarks you want to fall on. The Senate ethics rules don’t tell Senators how to make up their minds, so to look for ethics in this case we must go back to the ethical theories above.
Many people today frown on strict utilitarianism saying there are just some things you can’t do regardless of the consequences. There are just some cases in which the ends do not justify the means, no matter how beneficial. But let’s look at it this way: Do the means justify the ends? If Senators feel ethically obliged to let qualifications play the starring role in their voting decisions, the consequences could be dire. If we know Alito’s ideology and we think his presence on the Supreme Court will jeopardize the freedoms many of us have grown up taking as given, can you really justify saying “well I confirmed him because I thought ideology shouldn’t play a role in my vote?”
Permit me some hyperbole here. If Stalin or Castro or Hussein or Mussolini went to Harvard University and Yale Law school, clerked for the world court and aced his LSATs, I still wouldn’t be comfortable confirming him to any judicial seat. This would obviously not be for lack of qualifications in this hypothetical, but some other factors need to be taken into account. Granted Alito is a patriot and an upright citizen of the United States - I wouldn’t doubt that for a moment - but if you feel that he will do ill for this country inadvertently or otherwise, that needs to be taken into account regardless of media and republican rhetoric panning Democrats for concerning themselves too much with ideology.
Should ideology be taken into account? YES! You are confirming someone to the Supreme Court of the United States. We should know everything about this person, and if anything at all renders him unqualified or unsuitable to sit in one of the most powerful seats of American government, that should be taken into account.
Ok, now that you’ve had a crash course in college philosophy, let’s talk politics. Alito’s nomination has sparked debate in the Senate as to whether Senators can ethically consider Alito’s ideology in choosing how to vote on him or whether qualifications must hold all the weight. I suppose it depends on which ethical benchmarks you want to fall on. The Senate ethics rules don’t tell Senators how to make up their minds, so to look for ethics in this case we must go back to the ethical theories above.
Many people today frown on strict utilitarianism saying there are just some things you can’t do regardless of the consequences. There are just some cases in which the ends do not justify the means, no matter how beneficial. But let’s look at it this way: Do the means justify the ends? If Senators feel ethically obliged to let qualifications play the starring role in their voting decisions, the consequences could be dire. If we know Alito’s ideology and we think his presence on the Supreme Court will jeopardize the freedoms many of us have grown up taking as given, can you really justify saying “well I confirmed him because I thought ideology shouldn’t play a role in my vote?”
Permit me some hyperbole here. If Stalin or Castro or Hussein or Mussolini went to Harvard University and Yale Law school, clerked for the world court and aced his LSATs, I still wouldn’t be comfortable confirming him to any judicial seat. This would obviously not be for lack of qualifications in this hypothetical, but some other factors need to be taken into account. Granted Alito is a patriot and an upright citizen of the United States - I wouldn’t doubt that for a moment - but if you feel that he will do ill for this country inadvertently or otherwise, that needs to be taken into account regardless of media and republican rhetoric panning Democrats for concerning themselves too much with ideology.
Should ideology be taken into account? YES! You are confirming someone to the Supreme Court of the United States. We should know everything about this person, and if anything at all renders him unqualified or unsuitable to sit in one of the most powerful seats of American government, that should be taken into account.
