Political Ethics Question: Does rewarding a truly unethical person with high office call the ethics of the voter supporting that person into question?

[ModernDiogenes]

This is open to all. Not just supporters of any specific candidate. In fact, so that we all may learn what the public perception of this is it would be good if an honest appraisal of the public’s feelings on this was known. I wish this was a national survey, but let’s start here.

This is NOT to get personal so keep it to the point being discussed please.

Our modern political landscape makes this a very real, very of our times, honest question.

It is a valid ethics question that deserves a valid attempt to find an answer to it.

Hypothesis: Where, because the well documented recorded history of the person in question, through their actions to and against others, there leaves no doubt that the candidate is a person of very bad character and horrendous ethics, and:

That election to the high office in question decidedly rewards this person.

Query: Is that rewarding of this very bad person with this very high honor that rewards them for attaining it call into question the ethics of the person(s) supporting them? Are they committing an unethical act? If so, does this unethical act call their ethics in total into question?

Do you have to be an unethical person yourself to knowingly support a very unethical person for high office?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I’ll hold off on commenting till further in as I’d gather my feelings on this are relatively known in these parts.

 

[btthegreat]

This is open to all. Not just supporters of any specific candidate. In fact, so that we all may learn what the public perception of this is it would be good if an honest appraisal of the public’s feelings on this was known. I wish this was a national survey, but let’s start here.

This is NOT to get personal so keep it to the point being discussed please.

Our modern political landscape makes this a very real, very of our times, honest question.

It is a valid ethics question that deserves a valid attempt to find an answer to it.

Hypothesis: Where, because the well documented recorded history of the person in question, through their actions to and against others, there leaves no doubt that the candidate is a person of very bad character and horrendous ethics, and:

That election to the high office in question decidedly rewards this person.

Query: Is that rewarding of this very bad person with this very high honor that rewards them for attaining it call into question the ethics of the person(s) supporting them? Are they committing an unethical act? If so, does this unethical act call their ethics in total into question?

Do you have to be an unethical person yourself to knowingly support a very unethical person for high office?

The question boils down to - is it unethical to facilitate unethical behavior in others. I think it is.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Yes

Now, there are different degrees of unethical. One can charge a $50 dinner to their office (lower on the unethical scale) or one can snatch people off the street and send them to a death prison (high on the unethical scale and closer to Satan).

So it's easy for the people, who support THE most unethical politicians, to argue that we all do. And it's dumb of course.

 

[Craig234]

The choices don't really cover my view. It varies depending on the reasons the voter supports them, and I don't think it shows flaws in the supporter, but not always about ethics, at least primarily. For just one example, what about a person who is ignorant and brainwashed?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The question boils down to - is it unethical to facilitate unethical behavior in others. I think it is.

I would strongly agree.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The choices don't really cover my view. It varies depending on the reasons the voter supports them…

I am no fan of situational ethics. So if it’s wrong, it’s wrong. There can be extenuating circumstances, but that is not making it not wrong. It’s making it forgivable due to those circumstances. Not the same thing.

…and I don't think it shows flaws in the supporter, but not always about ethics, at least primarily. For just one example, what about a person who is ignorant and brainwashed?

A public figure, especially a life long public figure, has a presence where one would have to be more than simply ignorant to be unaware.

Brainwashed? Ok. I suppose. In the case of an election how are these people literally brainwashed. Recall that the use of this term mean free will has been, at least temporarily, removed from you. How would these supporters not still acting if free will?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I am surprised so few have anything to say on what is so important a matter.

This is literally a discussion of the health of our society/culture.

 

[Craig234]

I am no fan of situational ethics. So if it’s wrong, it’s wrong. There can be extenuating circumstances, but that is not making it not wrong. It’s making it forgivable due to those circumstances. Not the same thing.

I didn't say anything about situational ethics. And I did say - well, I mean to - that it involves flaws, I think I mistyped that as don't think it shows flaws.

Brainwashed? Ok. I suppose. In the case of an election how are these people literally brainwashed. Recall that the use of this term mean free will has been, at least temporarily, removed from you. How would these supporters not still acting if free will?

Brainwashing does not mean not having free will.

It can mean various things, but they include false and wrong information and views. If you believe Democrats have a ring in a pizza parlor basement for child enslavement and baby eating, you can 'ethically' strongly oppose them for such things. Billions are spent to mislead and brainwash. Here's one bit of info.

The Brainwashing of My Dad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Craig234]

I am surprised so few have anything to say on what is so important a matter.

Welcome to the forum. That happens all too often. Feel free to check some of my threads.

 

[Greg 1]

It depends on what your choices are. You have to promote the lesser of two evils.

Winston Churchill was a jerk, but was also the best option for British voters.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I didn't say anything about situational ethics. And I did say - well, I mean to - that it involves flaws, I think I mistyped that as don't think it shows flaws.

Ok? I’m more black and white on the matter than I’m taking from you on this. I’m I wrong about that?

A flaw in one’s ethics is the acceptance, or commission, of wrong doing. So where am I off on this?

Brainwashing does not mean not having free will.

It can mean various things, but they include false and wrong information and views. If you believe Democrats have a ring in a pizza parlor basement for child enslavement and baby eating, you can 'ethically' strongly oppose them for such things. Billions are spent to mislead and brainwash. Here's one bit of info.

The Brainwashing of My Dad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Def: Brainwashing, verb: the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.

Duress to the point of submission is the removal of free will.

Others are using the word wrongly.

 

[Craig234]

Ok? I’m more black and white on the matter than I’m taking from you on this. I’m I wrong about that?

I'm not sure, and it's not really how I frame it. But I think the situational ethics take was wrong, I'm usually on the side criticizing that.

A flaw in one’s ethics is the acceptance, or commission, of wrong doing. So where am I off on this?

Typically, I don't think voters are even thinking about ethics, which is its own type of ethical problem. There are many types. But a person who isn't even of thinking of ethics is different than a person who actively supports unethical policies. Ethics is a big topic, though trump is about as simple a case of sort of the opposite of ethics there is. That doesn't mean his voters understand that.

Def: Brainwashing, verb: the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.

Duress to the point of submission is the removal of free will.

Others are using the word wrongly.

A dictionary definition is, "a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas"

"Forcible" doesn't really apply, but the rest does. When you consider the size of the propaganda machine and its massive effect, with those billions of dollars I mentioned, and an army of thousands, and how it reverberates across society corrupting even the honest media, I think brainwashed accurately conveys it, but it could be tweaked in the wordng if you like. Our country is heavily indoctrinated in 'misinformation silos'

 

[Mithrae]

Query: Is that rewarding of this very bad person with this very high honor that rewards them for attaining it call into question the ethics of the person(s) supporting them? Are they committing an unethical act? If so, does this unethical act call their ethics in total into question?

Do you have to be an unethical person yourself to knowingly support a very unethical person for high office?

I picked the first and last options, because it really depends on what kind of unethical the person is and in particular whether there'll be any interplay between that unethical behaviour and their role in high office.

For example, from what I gather folk like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. are both believed to have been serial adulterers. That's got to be pretty close to the worst that unethical behaviour gets without actually breaking the law: But there's no particularly obvious or direct reason why it would impact their leadership or high office roles, and in most other respects they are regarded by many as having laudable views and positive political impacts, and it's not necessarily the case that any others in their camp would be equally charismatic or equally capable of achieving the same or better ends. So even if their sins were widely known in their own time I'm not sure it would necessarily have been unethical for folk to continue supporting them.

Conversely of course in cases where there's an obvious connection between unethical behaviour and performance in high office (eg. fraud, habitual public lying), particularly with direct adverse effect on those they're governing (eg. bigotry), supporting that person says a great deal about the supporter's own ethics or lack thereof. One needn't look to far for at least one contemporary example.


In short while 'virtue ethics' isn't entirely without merit I generally lean towards a more utilitarian approach, and in a political context the latter seems even more appropriate. It seems like a no-brainer that leaders should ideally be held to at least an average moral standard... but letting overall public harm (or less public good) come about simply to punish the more personal sins of a leader would seem rather misguided. Some level of pragmatism is particularly important in light of the level of scrutiny devoted to political leaders' lives; there's precious few of us who don't have some kind of secret which would look damning for a public official, suggesting that condemnation of leaders' skeletons can easily be more about virtue signalling than virtue ethics!

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Typically, I don't think voters are even thinking about ethics, which is its own type of ethical problem. There are many types. But a person who isn't even of thinking of ethics is different than a person who actively supports unethical policies. Ethics is a big topic, though trump is about as simple a case of sort of the opposite of ethics there is. That doesn't mean his voters understand that.

That’s scary, if true. (I agree that it’s true)

Not understanding something so basic isn’t a simple flaw, it’s a fundamental flaw of character. A broken core belief. A society that has a multitude of such folk sharing this broken core belief is a devolving society.

That’s literally what defines a society in decline; the breakdown of its fundamental, core, belief system.

We’ve recovered before, post the Great Depression. Tested by fire we redeveloped core beliefs and a “Greatest Generation” emerged from it.

Doesn’t have to work out that way. it can go the other way and stayed f##ked up for a very long time. Even if it comes out OK you’ve dealt with that torturous cataclysmic event (in our case a “Greatest Generation Depression and a World War).

So much better to not get broken in the first place.

A dictionary definition is, "a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas"

"Forcible" doesn't really apply, but the rest does. When you consider the size of the propaganda machine and its massive effect, with those billions of dollars I mentioned, and an army of thousands, and how it reverberates across society corrupting even the honest media, I think brainwashed accurately conveys it, but it could be tweaked in the wordng if you like. Our country is heavily indoctrinated in 'misinformation silos'

Chicken, egg, thing.

Did the propaganda machine break society, or did the propaganda machine work because society was broken?

One could argue that a healthy, well formulated, society would shrug off the attempt to corrupt it. Rejecting the propaganda machines efforts. Society would break the machine’s attempt to corrupt it, not the other way about.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I picked the first and last options, because it really depends on what kind of unethical the person is and in particular whether there'll be any interplay between that unethical behaviour and their role in high office.

For example, from what I gather folk like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. are both believed to have been serial adulterers. That's got to be pretty close to the worst that unethical behaviour gets without actually breaking the law: But there's no particularly obvious or direct reason why it would impact their leadership or high office roles, and in most other respects they are regarded by many as having laudable views and positive political impacts, and it's not necessarily the case that any others in their camp would be equally charismatic or equally capable of achieving the same or better ends. So even if their sins were widely known in their own time I'm not sure it would necessarily have been unethical for folk to continue supporting them.

When this all worked, before core beliefs were being questioned or outright ignored, we understood that breaking oaths are breaking oaths. It wasn’t “situational”. So when an electorate found out a politician was cheating on their spouse it’s group reaction was, “Well, if that person can break an oath to someone they allege to love, how easy would it be to break their oath to us? I must reject this candidate, regardless of their politics, as they are ineligible on their merits to serve in this capacity.”

A person with not only broken marriage oaths but massive, multiple, broken contractual oaths, lying and fraud would be a “no brainer”. Rejected out of hand, despite what they might promise, as absolutely ineligible as too flawed to serve and unmerited to be considered.

Does no one understand that so many of us that don’t know that is a massive problem in regard to the health of our society?

Conversely of course in cases where there's an obvious connection between unethical behaviour and performance in high office (eg. fraud, habitual public lying), particularly with direct adverse effect on those they're governing (eg. bigotry), supporting that person says a great deal about the supporter's own ethics or lack thereof. One needn't look to far for at least one contemporary example.

Of course, and an entire electorate in this regard a statement on the devolving character of a culture/society.

In short while 'virtue ethics' isn't entirely without merit I generally lean towards a more utilitarian approach, and in a political context the latter seems even more appropriate. It seems like a no-brainer that leaders should ideally be held to at least an average moral standard... but letting overall public harm (or less public good) come about simply to punish the more personal sins of a leader would seem rather misguided. Some level of pragmatism is particularly important in light of the level of scrutiny devoted to political leaders' lives; there's precious few of us who don't have some kind of secret which would look damning for a public official, suggesting that condemnation of leaders' skeletons can easily be more about virtue signalling than virtue ethics!

Metrics.

Coming into any situation with variables, thus unknowns, it’s a matter of resolving “what’s more likely than not”.

The “math” of this political equation is simple. The unethical person is more apt than not to be unethical in leading. The vastly unethical person is vastly more apt than not to be vastly unethical in leading.

The “public good” is obviously at threat from such a person. So the “equation” resulting in an “negative ethical net integer” means it’s not in “the public good’s interest” to go there.

That’s basic stuff. Core stuff. Our not understanding this any longer is the problem. It means our core beliefs, that use to protect us from this nonsense and was the essence of the “the stuff that happens elsewhere can’t happen here”, doesn’t work anymore.

Those core beliefs are what ‘Made America Great’ in the first place. ‘Making America Great Again’, means they have to come back.

 

[Craig234]

For example, from what I gather folk like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. are both believed to have been serial adulterers. That's got to be pretty close to the worst that unethical behaviour gets without actually breaking the law:

That's a much more complicated topic, about powerful men and sex. I think it can be a bit of a 'different equation' for some of them. JFK was raised by a powerful man with a culture that there was family and his wife's role, and there was his right to be a serial adulterer such as with movie stars. A somewhat different view of roles and 'privileges'. A somewhat different 'ethical' issue from some others.

I can't speak as much to King, and his issues were a bit different as a religious leader.

In JFK's case, the topic included not only the views he was raised with of it, but even different kinds of sex - he had a close relationship with Mary Pinchot Meyer, ex-wife of a top CIA official and in a 'Washington Wives' lobbying their husbands for peace, and he had young women star struck brought in as interns. I saw one interviewed, she said she would do it again despite some apparent shame or regret also.

There elements of the benefits to him as he led the nation, and elements involving that 'he was in bad pain every day' and it provided him some relief. It's just not quite a simple black and white issue. Another ethical issue is that had it been exposed, it would have damaged and it seems likely ended his presidency, and the press reportedly knew, yet he did it. It's a very different ethical issue than ones like corruption or violent policies, though.

 

[Craig234]

That’s scary, if true. (I agree that it’s true)

Of course. But it's also IMO 'how it's always been', which might be something I'm not sure you appreciate, as you look to blame or credit 'the people' involved rather than other factors I think are likely stronger.

To make that point, I could discuss 'the people' of WWII and now being more similar than you are suspecting, but another way to discuss it would be to compare WWII Americans and WWII Germans, who I think were awfully similar, and the differences different leaders and governments made.

Not understanding something so basic isn’t a simple flaw, it’s a fundamental flaw of character. A broken core belief. A society that has a multitude of such folk sharing this broken core belief is a devolving society.

I would argue in ways, the US has too much of that 'devolving', from the days when the US could better related to a 'great nation' being one that supported peace, justice, freedom for others, aiding the weak to now, with Republicans restoring 'America First' - but remember where 'America First' came from, that same generation you praise.

That’s literally what defines a society in decline; the breakdown of its fundamental, core, belief system.

In fact, I'd suggest the US was doing BETTER under Biden, such as USAID providing help globally saving millions of lives - it was a government that changed and abolished it, not society, other than a small number of votes shifting from 2020 to 2024.

We’ve recovered before, post the Great Depression. Tested by fire we redeveloped core beliefs and a “Greatest Generation” emerged from it.

That also is a much more complicated story IMO. FDR had actually run in the Great Depression on a campaign message that Hoover was doing *too much* in government, hard as that is to believe, and won. As our country saw Hitler invading in Europe and WII underway, the US was strongly OPPOSED to getting involved.

So much so that Republicans saw it as their chance to beat FDR, and they pledged not to enter the war.

FDR recognized that was the national view, and that since he felt the US needed to join the war, IMO he needed to deceive the nation - another ethical issue. He also pledged to stay out of the war, but added, 'unless we are attacked'. Then he set out to ensure we were attacked, which led to Pearl Harbor, and as he expected, the nation switched to support war - but on Japan, not Germany, initially.

FDR had a political challenge in joining the European War briefly, but Hitler declaring war on us helped some. It wasn't so much 'the people' were different.

Doesn’t have to work out that way. it can go the other way and stayed f##ked up for a very long time. Even if it comes out OK you’ve dealt with that torturous cataclysmic event (in our case a “Greatest Generation Depression and a World War).

Things could have gone very differently in WWII. Powerful Americans, including the Dulles brothers, had a lot more sympathy for allying with Hitler. One Senator, for example, was actually paid by the Nazis and promoted their views. That also wasn't so much about 'society' being more ethical.

 

[Craig234]

So much better to not get broken in the first place.

There's a lot about 'the times', and I'd suggest a leading cause of 'decline' is oligarchy.

Back when Republicans took the Presidency, House, and Senate in 1952, they didn't touch FDR's high tax rates. Oligarchy was not the dominant political force it became. That happened gradually, I'd argue Nixon launched it and Reagan embodied it, and our country has had pro-oligarchy ideology shoved on it since.

Did the propaganda machine break society, or did the propaganda machine work because society was broken?

See above. Louis Brandeis said over a century before, 'Society can have great concentration of wealth, or it can have democracy, but it cannot have both'. We're seeing that in action as concentration of wealth has skyrocketed to new highs, after it plummeted with FDR. As concentration of wealth increased, it was weaponized for political power. I'd say 'the propaganda machine broke society' more, but not entirely.

One could argue that a healthy, well formulated, society would shrug off the attempt to corrupt it. Rejecting the propaganda machines efforts. Society would break the machine’s attempt to corrupt it, not the other way about.

I'd say it's more complicated than people being better or not, and remind of another famous phrase, 'power tends to corrupt'. The US becoming the most powerful country in the world saw it change in ways also. I'd also suggest we'd be pretty different if Humphrey won in 1968, Carter in 1980, Gore in 2000, Bernie in 2016. There are a lot of issues.

One other old quote over decades from over a century ago involved, the rich can always pay half the poor to kill the other half. That's not about 'society' as much as money corrupting. We've never seen quite the political and propaganda machines for oligarchy we now have. The politics of Hitler's and trump's rise - gaining power from inciting rage over high prices and scapegoats (Jews, immigrants) - are rather similar.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Of course. But it's also IMO 'how it's always been', which might be something I'm not sure you appreciate, as you look to blame or credit 'the people' involved rather than other factors I think are likely stronger.

To make that point, I could discuss 'the people' of WWII and now being more similar than you are suspecting, but another way to discuss it would be to compare WWII Americans and WWII Germans, who I think were awfully similar, and the differences different leaders and governments made.



I would argue in ways, the US has too much of that 'devolving', from the days when the US could better related to a 'great nation' being one that supported peace, justice, freedom for others, aiding the weak to now, with Republicans restoring 'America First' - but remember where 'America First' came from, that same generation you praise.



In fact, I'd suggest the US was doing BETTER under Biden, such as USAID providing help globally saving millions of lives - it was a government that changed and abolished it, not society, other than a small number of votes shifting from 2020 to 2024.



That also is a much more complicated story IMO. FDR had actually run in the Great Depression on a campaign message that Hoover was doing *too much* in government, hard as that is to believe, and won. As our country saw Hitler invading in Europe and WII underway, the US was strongly OPPOSED to getting involved.

So much so that Republicans saw it as their chance to beat FDR, and they pledged not to enter the war.

FDR recognized that was the national view, and that since he felt the US needed to join the war, IMO he needed to deceive the nation - another ethical issue. He also pledged to stay out of the war, but added, 'unless we are attacked'. Then he set out to ensure we were attacked, which led to Pearl Harbor, and as he expected, the nation switched to support war - but on Japan, not Germany, initially.

FDR had a political challenge in joining the European War briefly, but Hitler declaring war on us helped some. It wasn't so much 'the people' were different.



Things could have gone very differently in WWII. Powerful Americans, including the Dulles brothers, had a lot more sympathy for allying with Hitler. One Senator, for example, was actually paid by the Nazis and promoted their views. That also wasn't so much about 'society' being more ethical.

Practical, pragmatic, realism.

You control what takes place in the six inches between your ears. What happens outside that is effected by so many variables. You can’t control most of what takes place but you control how you react to everything. The CHOICES you make. Totally under your control.

Ethical responses. Not defrauding others. Operation under Golden Rule Ethical Thinking, totally the choice of the individual.

Talking of outside actions and influences loses focus on the true nature of CHOICE, free will and personal responsibility. It’s all within those six to eight inches between your ears.

The rest is excuses.

 

[Craig234]

The rest is excuses.

There were no excuses in my post.

 

[Jay59]

I’ll hold off on commenting till further in as I’d gather my feelings on this are relatively known in these parts.

Is this about Bill Clinton or Joe Biden?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

There were no excuses in my post.

I didn’t say you were making excuses.

I’m suggesting society makes excuses for circumstances that are a matter of the one thing we can control, or choices. Laying off responsibility on all matter of circumstances that are not within our control which create the “situations” on which situational ethics is based.

The best ethical thinking is based inwardly on our choices to outside influences. Not on the outside influences effecting our choices. Doing right regardless of the circumstances is pure ethical thinking. The height of awareness and self-responsibility.

Easier said than done, but what isn’t that’s perfect.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Is this about Bill Clinton or Joe Biden?

It’s about anyone leader.

The current one and his very real history just pushes the notion to new limits making it even more currently an issue, but it is never not important.

We are talking about foundational, core, ethical pillars of what made our culture and nation great.

 

[Jay59]

It’s about anyone leader.

You specified "truly unethical."

Those two are on the top of the mountain.

The current one and his very real history just pushes the notion to new limits making it even more currently an issue, but it is never not important.

Not close, especially not to Bill.

We are talking about foundational, core, ethical pillars of what made our culture and nation great.

He was called Slick for a reason.