Rand Paul and other Trump defenders are lying to you about the sixth amendment
“The scope and reach of the Sixth Amendment has been extensively litigated, and it most assuredly does not apply to the House’s impeachment inquiry.” - David French
- 3 views
I’m still seeking clarification. Whether a candidate is evil isn’t your question, but whether it would be “wrong” to vote for him. Surely you mean morally wrong. Not “wrong” like getting the wrong answer on a math test or choosing to throw a ground ball to 1st with a running advancing to 2nd.
What is the distinction between “evil” and “morally wrong”?
Then there’s this idea of “acts that require justification.” I’ll let you answer the first question first.
[Dan Miller]I’m not sure how anyone else would answer this, but I find it an interesting question, so I’ll give my answer.I’m still seeking clarification. Whether a candidate is evil isn’t your question, but whether it would be “wrong” to vote for him. Surely you mean morally wrong. Not “wrong” like getting the wrong answer on a math test or choosing to throw a ground ball to 1st with a running advancing to 2nd.
What is the distinction between “evil” and “morally wrong”?
I see “evil” to contain more of a malevolent intent than does something that is “morally wrong.” Speeding, for example, is morally wrong since it is against the law and God has told us to obey the law. I wouldn’t say speeding is evil, however, since one typically doesn’t have any malevolent intent while speeding.
Well, I’m not sure the difference matters if we’re talking about our actions. As believers we would want to avoid doing evil and also avoid doing wrong. In general, I think most people reserve “evil” for…
a. Morally wrong actions that are especially serious/heinous/etc.
b. People who are especially devoted to actions that are especially serious/heinous/etc.
But I can’t really see why it’s relevant. My objection to characterizing my view Trump as “he’s evil” is that it sets up a straw man: “Aaron says it’s wrong to vote for Trump because he’s so evil” is easy to counter with an argument that “he’s really not that bad.”
But my view isn’t that he deserves to be characterized as evil. My view is that he is unqualified for office due to lacking the minimum requirements for maturity, good judgment, and trustworthiness (among others). This is also easy to answer with a “he’s really not so bad,” but far less convincingly… because of so many public displays of immaturity, poor judgment, and untrustworthiness (etc.).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion