Rand Paul and other Trump defenders are lying to you about the sixth amendment

What Kevin has illustrated is what happens when we only analyze the ethics/morality of act in light of outcomes and alternatives + ignore the moral significance of indirect vs. direct + don’t accept that an act can be morally wrong in itself. (What happens is that things are not “obvious” — I’ll say clear — that really should be.)

Going back to the cave scenario I described, I’ll modify it a little again, to make the point even more “obvious.” Suppose that instead of a women blocking the entrance of the cave, it’s an infant or it’s your wife or one of your children, and you can only unblock the entrance and free everyone from drowning if you directly kill and remove this person stuck in the cave entrance: is it morally right to kill a baby or your own wife or child to save everyone in the cave?

The truth is that we are not responsible for all indirect outcomes of our actions. There are both plain logical cases and theological ones for this. Theological first: God is sovereign and what happens is ultimately up to Him. Logic: intent counts in moral evaluation (there’s a theological case for this also), and the unintended indirect outcomes of our actions don’t have the same moral significance/moral weight as the direct, intended ones. An additional point to the logic is that quite often indirect outcomes are the product of many more factors than our actions: someone created the dilemma to begin with and the fact that the dilemma exists is their responsibility, not ours.

In the case of the cave, I choose not to kill the person blocking the opening. It isn’t my intent to kill everyone inside the cave, nor is it my action that kills them. A natural phenomenon does that. I contribute to it, yes, but it is not my intent to harm. I did not put everyone in this situation to begin with and I am not responsible for their deaths if choose not to directly murder a human being in order to save them.

In the case of the Nazi vote scenario, I didn’t create the situation where only evil, racist, human-torture/experimentation, genocidal leadership is available. I choose not to vote for anybody with the intent that I not support or empower any of these people. The indirect outcome of the worst candidate winning is not a direct outcome of my action, not my intent, and not my moral responsibility.

This is where we disagree Aaron. It has not been established that Trump is that bad. He tweets a lot. Some see it as rude. Ok. How is that bad or evil? He uses crude language. How is that evil? I don’t follow your logic. His policy proposals are usually rock solid in my view. Israelite kings were evil because they worshipped foreign gods and killed people. Trump? Not so much. Roman emperors…

No, this is not actually where we disagree. We disagree on (a) how to evaluate truth claims, (b) how to evaluate the ethics of a vote and (c) Trump’s character. I haven’t used the word “evil.” He simply lacks the basic character requirements for the office of President as intended by the Constitution and its authors/ratifiers.

A few times I’ve started to create a list of all the reasons why I believe Trump is below the minimum character threshold for the office, for writing up an essay. It becomes overwhelming pretty quickly. … and I increasingly think it would be pointless because the “he’s not so bad” crowd have already achieved and demonstrated Olympic skill in tuning out and explaining away what they don’t want to see. I don’t think I can overcome that, so I would only be creating a big ugly bullet list that would only be honestly faced by those who don’t need it, because they’re already aware.

[Aaron Blumer]…A few times I’ve started to create a list of all the reasons why I believe Trump is below the minimum character threshold for the office, for writing up an essay. It becomes overwhelming pretty quickly. … and I increasingly think it would be pointless because the “he’s not so bad” crowd have already achieved and demonstrated Olympic skill in tuning out and explaining away what they don’t want to see. I don’t think I can overcome that, so I would only be creating a big ugly bullet list that would only be honestly faced by those who don’t need it, because they’re already aware.

We’ve been over some of this before and I think we agree that a candidate doesn’t have to be perfect. (And won’t be.)

The discussion of “in what situation would you vote for a nazi”? Ahhh… crazily extreme example. Frankly I’m not sure how useful that is.
And whether Patten or the Solviets were better at killing nazis. (It was Patten!) I get why it was brought up.
We made an alliance with the communists against the Nazis, which was IMO the right (necessary) thing to do. But it wasn’t a lasting alliance and everyone knew it. Because communism is evil. And Socialism is evil.

The discussion of “in what situation would you vote for a nazi”? Ahhh… crazily extreme example. Frankly I’m not sure how useful that is.

I think it is very useful because it illustrates the fallacy of the premise Aaron is trying to advance. Yes, it’s extreme and intentionally so. Once we establish an extreme that is obvious (and I can’t understand any case in which it isn’t obvious), then we can work backwards towards a line and put some proverbial meat on the bones.

The truth is that we are not responsible for all indirect outcomes of our actions.

But you are responsible for some. This is basis of negligent homicide. It is a well-established biblical principle in the Law, that if you can reasonably foresee an outcome and fail to take steps to prevent it, you are liable to at least some degree. Are we not responsible to make the best possible choice among the choices we have? And then live with the outcome that God has decreed? To abdicate that seems a violation of God’s call to be faithful in the world in which he has placed us. To say that unintended indirect outcomes do not have the same moral significance as intended direct outcomes it obvious. But that does not mean that intended direct outcomes have no moral significance. If you could have done something and didn’t, you are responsible to at least some degree. If you see a child freezing in the snow alongside the road and drive past in your warm car on the way to your warm house because you didn’t put the child there and it is not your responsibility—it’s just natural outcome if the child freezes to death—there is clearly a moral depravity, a depraved indifference for which we are responsible. Again, an extreme example? Sure. But another obvious one.

I agree with Dan that I think your view of your list is evidence against you—that there are explanations for it which are certainly reasonable. Remember, most evangelicals did not want Trump. He was the best possible candidate.

If your contention is that Trump does not deserve blanket support, then most of us certainly agree. But that’s not your contention, is it?. Your contention is that it would be better to give hundreds of court appointments and decades of judicial tenure to a liberal because Trump is bad in some areas. Your contention is that not voting for Trump is more important than the lives that will be saved through is actions. That is, to me, an indefensible position. And I have read the defenses. I realize this is strong language so I say it carefully and with all due respect, but I contend (as I have before), that those defenses are inherently self-centered: “I must satisfy myself even if hundreds, thousands, and millions of others are adversely affected, and even if our constitutional way of life is damaged.” I want to be able to see that as a legitimate option. I just can’t find any basis for it. This is someone putting themselves above the good of the whole.

Yes, God is sovereign and he is in control. But remember, God works out his sovereignty through human choices, and the sovereignty of God is not fatalism. Your position seems to amount to a civil mix of hyperCalvinism and que sera sera. We are responsible for the lives we lead and the input we have on the society around us.

[Larry]

The discussion of “in what situation would you vote for a nazi”? Ahhh… crazily extreme example. Frankly I’m not sure how useful that is.

I think it is very useful because it illustrates the fallacy of the premise Aaron is trying to advance. Yes, it’s extreme and intentionally so. Once we establish an extreme that is obvious (and I can’t understand any case in which it isn’t obvious), then we can work backwards towards a line and put some proverbial meat on the bones.

Even lately, Aaron wants to talk about a pregnant lady stuck in a cave entrance. He’s stuck on the idea that some actions are evil, even If necessary to save life. I’m not so sure I agree. But regardless, Aaron’s point is that if it’s evil to kill her, then saving people doesn’t change that. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, his point is that voting for Trump is evil enough, and his superiority over Clinton or now one of the socialists coming down the pike is insignificant enough that it’s wrong to vote for him. That I find preposterous.
In 2016, I held my nose and voted for Trump. I am much happier with him now than then.

Aaron’s argument is that there may come a situation in which the “less evil” choice is still too evil to receive a vote.

Yes, and that is where the argument lies. Is there ever a situation in which there is neither side (or any side) that is better than the others, all things considered? I can’t imagine what that situation is. Yes, there are value judgments of various types and varying weights. But in what case isn’t there something that pushes us one way or the other?

- I agree in that in a case of significant evil on both sides, neither is significantly less evil.

Perhaps, but that case would have to be made and it hasn’t been made here.

- Further, I object to anything here at SI that will end up in anybody’s internet search and give them a chance to quote Christian Fundies as in any way pro nazi. Yes some would be happy to take it out of context.

I object to stupidity and dishonesty and anyone who would come across this in a search and quote it out of context would be as wicked as Trump, and probably stupider. I am not all that worried about it. People who can’t think won’t learn to think by us not exposing them to ideas they haven’t considered. When we refuse to give argumentation on the basis that someone might be bothered by it, we have given in to the Nazi mentality. They, in such a case, would more similar to the Nazi’s.

The Nazi’s were unthinkably wicked. The exercise here is simply one of thought for comparison. It can’t be missed by anyone who is semi-intelligent.

With Dan, I’m not too concerned about the hypotheticals being taken out of context… thought experiments have a long tradition and sometimes you can’t really achieve clarity without using them in some form.

About “too evil”…

I’m not really making a “too evil” argument in reference to Trump, though that does work to illustrate the more general idea that an act can be wrong all by itself, even if it would have better outcomes than the alternatives.

… and that bolded part is 90% or more of what I’ve been trying to sell, though I’ve tried to say it different ways in hopes of better success.

To pull the pieces together again, maybe a bit differently:

• Some acts require justification because they would normally be wrong: and outcomes can justify them
• Some acts cannot be justified by any set of outcomes
• An act that requires justification but is not justified is wrong… it’s sin
• When an act is not justified by the likely outcomes, we are not responsible for the consequences of rejecting that act (sin is never not sin)

So all of that is aimed at establishing how the moral reasoning should be carried out.

In the case of a U.S. election, there’s another layer of principles that really ought to be established before going to the particular case of 2016.

• We’ve been blessed with a system of governance that is better than what most nations have had through the centuries
  • Blessings are God’s gifts
  • We’re stewards of those blessings
• The system we’re called to be good stewards of was designed to work a particular way
• The design includes electing an executive that meets certain basic character requirements
• Those requirements include things like trustworthiness, honor, good judgment, thoughtful decision-making, a basic level of self-control, respect for fellow human beings, able to make agreements in good faith, etc. A leader is going to say things he genuinely believes that later turn out to have been in error… he should very rarely lie to the American people or our allies in other nations. He should interact with foreign nations in a way that puts national security ahead of personal benefits. Etc.
  • To summarize all that: shouldn’t be “evil,” but also needs to have a basic level of maturity and skill (the founders had a higher standard than that in mind though!)
• American citizens should not work against the design of their system of governance by voting for leaders who don’t meet the minimum character/maturity/skill requirements

I’d just like to see all that be part of the moral reasoning rather than just “either A or B is going to win, and B is worse than A so I should vote for A.”

Hey, I can dream, can’t I? :-)

[Joeb]

Wow. Aaron what you said is fantastic. In this area you speak my language. God blessed you with a lot of wisdom. I hope I’m not scaring you Aaron. Good job.

You’re too kind. … and already convinced. I’m not sure it’s persuasive to anyone already committed to a particular approach to voting decisions. But maybe it can help someone who hasn’t yet made up his mind.

One example of inaction being called wrong is in Esther 4. Mordecai wanted her to go to the king, but she knew it was against the law to appear before him without being called. When she told this to Mordecai, you know the response:

“Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king’s house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

She then agreed to disobey the law to try to save the Jews. Sure, you can claim that this was justified. But she could have obeyed the law and done nothing. Would she have been guilty of sin by doing so, or should she have ignored Mordecai’s counsel to instead obey the lawful government and thereby do right? I think the whole point of these verses is that our inaction and refusal to make hard choices can have consequences for which we would bear the responsibility, and we can’t simply take refuge in the idea that we didn’t do anything wrong by choosing to obey the law we know without considering the outcome.

Now I’m just more confused. You have been talking all along about morality and right and wrong and killing pregnant women with dynamite. Yet now you shy away from “evil.”

So perhaps this would be better:?

We’re in a cave; the only entrance is blocked and cannot be cleared. One small exit hole remains, which has water pouring out of it. It will soon be underwater. People have queued up for the small hole. At the front of the line is an obese woman. Our tour guide (leader) tells a couple of us, “That lady is too fat to fit through. Once she gets in that hole, with the water pressure, we won’t be able to pull her out. I’m going to tell her she’s too fat to try.”

Someone says, “You can’t call her fat. That’s rude. There’s no place for rudeness. If you’re rude enough to call people fat, you shouldn’t be our leader.”

Now I would agree that it is generally rude to call people fat. But in this case, it should be done.

I think where I confuse people at times is that I’m always trying to reason from principles. So a particular application gets conflated with the prinicples. I’m a “principles first” guy (I hope!). That said, the point of the cave dilemma is to illustrate some principles about how we evaluate ethical choices. And I never used the word “evil” in those discussions either. I don’t know why that’s even in the conversation, because what we’re talking about is whether behaving in a particular way is right or wrong.

The key points of the cave dilemma are these:

• Sometimes an act must be justified, because it would be normally be wrong (killing someone to save more people)
• Sometimes the outcomes can justify it. (e.g., self defense, defense of some innocent third party)
• Some acts cannot be justified by their outcomes (e.g., directly killing a child to unclog the cave and save the occupants)

I pointed out some implications, also principles:

• An act that requires justification but is not justified is wrong… it’s sin
• When an act is not justified by the likely outcomes, we are not responsible for the consequences of rejecting that act (sin is never not sin)

In applying the ethical evaluation process to a voting decision, whether one or both of the candidates is “evil” is really not relevant. We’re talking about whether our behavior is right or wrong. So the questions would be:

• Does voting for a candidate who is of very poor character and skill require justification?
• If it does, can it be justified?
• If it can, do the likely outcomes actually justify it?

etc.

About Esther

I’ve never made the claim that no acts can be justified by outcomes. My claim is that some acts must be justified in order to be right; some of these in fact can be justified but aren’t (but the particular outcomes); some can’t really be justified by any outcomes; some can be justified and are, by the likely outcomes.

In the case of Esther, there are lots of ways to analyze it, but what you did above was mostly the process I’ve been describing: decide whether her actions required justification; decide whether they were, in fact, justified by the outcomes.

But this is not the ethical evaluation process evangelicals have, for the most part, been applying to the voting process. When we come to voting, suddenly we abandon all that and reduce it to “who is the worse of the two electables; the right thing to do is vote for the other one.” … but we don’t evaluate whether that:

• needs justifying
• is justifiable at all
• if justifiable, is really justified by the outcomes

(I think I should try to make a flow chart, maybe)

[Ken S]

TylerR wrote:

Why are Christians so angry about politics?

In my opinion, it’s because most American Christians have not fully understood what it means to have their true citizenship in heaven, and they willingly attribute the power and authority that belong to Jesus Christ to America and its government instead. Americans tend to think that Jesus’ power and influence should be funneled through the American government rather than the church. If we changed this perspective, we would be significantly less tied to never-ending political wranglings.

There are a lot of things that while temporal are still worthy of righteous anger.

Joe, if you want to call people hypocrites for objecting to a wrong of one sort while ignorantly/negligently overlooking another wrong, that’s fine.
But in reality, hypocrisy is the way of the lives we live. We’re called to repentance by the Word and we read it and apply it bit by bit. So yes, we repent of something, and even while doing that we cling to other wrong things.
And we learn to hate something that God hates and become angry over it, even while we stubbornly or stupidly embrace something we should not.

I do not agree that God has some rule that we can’t repent of one thing unless we have figured out and decided to repent of the entire list of wrongs that we have.