There was a time when I thought I would have enjoyed the job of being the New York Times advice columnist, “The Ethicist.” In the last year or so, however, the questions the current column-holder has answered have tended to indicate basic ethics problem-solving skills among the public have fallen to an abysmal level. And these are supposed to be the best questions received by Kwame Anthony Appiah, a philosophy professor at NYU. Heavens to Betsy, what are the other questions like?
This week’s top question was this:
A few years ago, American friends of mine bought a home in a European country in order to obtain an E.U. passport. (The country has an immigration program supporting this.) They state that they are doing so in case the United States presidential election goes as they fear. They, and I, have no doubt that the U.S. would fall to some form of authoritarianism if the wrong candidate were elected. They, and I, are white, well educated, nonimmigrants and upper middle class, with a wide range of well-connected and financially stable friends. Our demographic backgrounds are relevant to my question, which is on the ethics of leaving a country because its democratic institutions are failing. As members of some of the groups who most likely will retain many tangible privileges and are least likely to be negatively affected, do we have an ethical obligation to stay and help those who will be impacted more harshly than us, or is it ethically acceptable to leave the country?
Translation: “I am a gullible, faint-hearted Trump Deranged fool who understands neither democracy, civic responsibility, history nor politics. Is it ethically acceptable for me to leave the country?”
My answer: Sure. You’ll be doing everyone else a favor.
Anyone who “has no doubt” that the “wrong candidate’s” election will throw the country into some find of authoritarianism when the other candidate’s party openly opposes free speech, has been using the courts to try to jail that “wrong candidate,” and whose current candidate was chosen in the most undemocratic manner of any Presidential candidate in our history, is too useless and silly to care about. Institutions are “failing” when they don’t do what the questioner wants them to do? I don’t think he or she quite grasps that democracy thingy.
Now, to a more rational questioner I would respond that it is the civic duty of citizens in a democratic republic to dedicate themselves to building the best and most effective government possible. The gravamen of that is that one must accept the results of elections, oppose policies through constructive means such as building consensus and recruiting capable candidates for office, and work within the system for reform. The attitude of supporting a democratic system only as long as it results in leaders and candidates one approves of is an undemocratic orientation, redolent of a lack of respect for one’s fellow citizens.
The United States of America did not get this far with “Run away!” as its reflex reaction to adversity, opposition, criticism and unwanted developments. ( “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”) At the end of his needlessly lengthy answer, the Ethicist more or less gets it right: “If you’re convinced that life here will be unbearable for you, you are morally free to go. Morally free doesn’t mean morally admirable, though. You make it clear that this country has treated you well; let me note that people can have patriotic hopes for a country that has treated them badly.”
Maybe it’s good he has the job and not me. “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, asshole” would probably be unseemly.
_____________
WordPress wants me to tag this “artificial intelligence.” Does it know something I don’t?
Ethics Alarms 
I’m sure the vast majority of the Times readers’ hearts beat as one with this wonderful couple. Wasn’t it about this time in the 2016 election celebs and wannabe celebs were virtue signaling by telling everyone they were going to Canada if “the wrong candidate” won? Cue Bob Dylan, “Too much of nothin’ and no one has control.” These people’s wealth and comfort seems to have rotted their brains.
“Victory Girls”also reacted to this “Ethicist” exchange…https://victorygirlsblog.com/leaving-the-country-comes-with-considerations/
She nailed it as well. Worthwhile site! Thanks for the link.
I think sometimes The Ethicist just makes these “questions” up.
Then why would he make up THAT one?
Good one! I actually laughed out loud at your question back to me [and I know you are not a fan of using LOL and the like, so I wrote it out!]
To show the absurdity of full blown TDS?
I’m sure there is an infinite set of ethical dilemmas, but after awhile, you got to get creative!
I clicked on the link you shared. I had not previously checked out his column. Some of these questions…??
I actually laughed out loud at your question back to me [and I know you are not a fan of using LOL and the like, so I wrote it out!]
That’s very considerate.
QL, I’m sure the Ethicist had to struggle mightily to resist writing, “I’ll be right behind you if Trump wins! Where are you going?”
He came from Ghana. He knows a good thing when he sees it.
That’s why you wish he would respond with, “Yo, you dippest of shits, you – That’s an assinine question based on a false premise and take it from me, you have no idea about authoritarianism. So, please just shut the fuck up, quit complaining about nothing and get on your hands and knees and pray God doesn’t hyper-space your sorry ass to ‘Democratic Republic’ of Congo.”
I remain convince that ethics, i.e., morality in America is dying. In my mind both morality and ethics have to do with distinguishing the difference between “good and bad” or “right and wrong.” In my college ethics course (many decades ago) we were taught to consider morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting.
With that in mind, a 2022 survey by YouGov found that 53% of Americans say that moral values in the U.S. are either weak or very weak.
An interesting side note of the survey revealed while 68% of Republicans and 53% of Independents say that moral values in the U.S. are weak or very weak, only 39% of Democrats agree.
That even ethicists can’t agree on the difference between morality and ethics is not helpful. As stated in the EA glossary above, I use “morality” to mean codified ethics under the control of some authority. Thus the Ten commandments is a moral code. Moral Codes are constant and change, if at all, rarely and slowly. Ethics is the evolving standards of right and wrong, and is dynamic, though it requires some cultural absolutes. Morality is easy (just follow the rules); ethics is difficult.
stealing is unethical in general. it might not be immoral under a given moral code, such as is developing in California/Oregon/Washington?
You say ethics changes over time, such as whether it is ethical to kill another human, which it has been and seems to be coming back around….
Killing is in the absolute ethics realm, nut there are exceptions: self-defense, war, etc. An example of changing ethics would be gender discrimination and sexual harassment.
This is what bugs me about the question:
”As members of some of the groups who most likely will retain many tangible privileges and are least likely to be negatively affected, do we have an ethical obligation to stay and help those who will be impacted more harshly than us,”
Basically, they admit that things won’t be bad for them if the wrong candidate is elected, but it is their feelings of guilt for the plight of the Great Unwashed that make them feel bad about leaving. They have a white savior complex.
These people should wear hairshirts and flagellate themselves before they are allowed to leave. They just might do it.
-Jut
Except that the people this writer wants to win have been show decisively over the last 50 years to have cause the worst outcomes for those very groups. By negatively affected, does the writer mean “More likely to be able to get stable, decent paying jobs” as a negative outcome? Is ‘more likely to be dependent on government assistance or be incarcerated’ a positive outcome? People like the writer spend their time virtue signalling, but they run away if someone actually asks them to clarify what they mean.
As I was reading your post I was wondering which way you would go on interpreting this question to “The Ethicist”.
I fit the characteristics the questioner uses to describe himself. I would wager you, and many of your readers, do too. I am also concerned that if the wrong candidate wins the US might fall into some form of authoritarianism. I’m pretty sure you’re concerned about that as well, since at least to some extent my concerns are things I’ve learned about from you.
But by “the wrong candidate”, I mean Harris, not Trump.
I don’t have access to the New York Times, (I sure as hell wouldn’t pay for it), but nowhere in the part you quoted does the question say who the wrong candidate is. I wonder if the questioner is trolling?
The questioner knows he/she is writing to the New York Times, and that everyone knows exactly which candidate is being referenced.
Maybe. I think it’s more accurate to say the questioner knows he/she is writing to the New York Times, and knows that everyone will assume exactly which candidate is being referenced.
There are virtue points to be had in naming Trump as the next coming of Hitler, and no downside when you’re in the safe space of the New York Times. Why be coy about it?