Since last week, in succession, “The Ethicist” who hangs out at the New York Times Magazine has chosen to answer “My Mom Voted for Trump. Can We Let It Go?,” then “Am I a Hypocrite for Calling Donald Trump a Liar?” (which was too stupid for Ethics Alarms to even make fun of) and now comes the brain-melting “Shouldn’t Trump Voters Be Viewed as Traitors?”
“Name Withheld” writes, “From my perspective, the attack on the Capitol spurred on by Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, the efforts to nullify the results of the 2020 election with false electors and unfounded court cases and the persistent effort to discredit those election results without evidence amounted to an attempt to overthrow a pillar of our democracy. More to the point, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 includes crimes against the nation described as treason, misprision of treason, rebellion or insurrection, seditious conspiracy and advocating the overthrow of government. I hold anyone voting for Trump at least morally guilty for the consequences of Jan. 6 and everything that follows the recent election. Would you agree that people who vote for Trump in light of these circumstances are themselves guilty of treasonous acts?”
The correct answer to this is “You need to read more, study law and Presidential power as well as the Constitution, and then you might at least have standing to ask such an ignorant question, except that after you did your due diligence and homework, which you obviously haven’t (watching MSNBC doesn’t count) you would know enough not to ask it.”
To go to the heart of the question from the start, declaring that a citizen voting for a candidate who is legally on the ballot (despite Democratic efforts to block him from running) could be treason or any criminal act is pure Crazy Town. The writer also doesn’t understand the fallacy of consequentialism (and Prof. Appiah—that’s “The Ethicist’s” real name—doesn’t clearly explain it to Name Withheld, not that he or she seems intellectually capable of grasping it.)
The NYU philosophy prof does point out that NW’s indictment of Trump voters and supporters would criminalize political disagreement. Ah! So we know that NW is not only a Democrat, but maybe even a member of the Justice Department! Wait, I thought it was Trump who wants to imprison political opponents!
“The Ethicist” shows his bias by concluding, “[T]here may be a cost when you deem those who vote for the other side as ‘‘the enemy from within.’’ That’s a term that Trump has freely employed, of course. You’ll want to ask yourself whether protecting democracy is best served by adopting this attitude.” Except that Trump [has never used that term nor implied it to describe citizens who vote for Democrats, though Joe Biden did…
Moreover, Trump’s use of “the enemy within” has been used to describe the “Deep State,” with which he and his supporters have had direct contact [FBI, Justice Department, FEMA, etc.) justifying the description “enemies within,” and the mainstream news media…of which I say, “ditto.” Appiah might have also pointed oit that if there was any way on earth Jack Smith could have charged Trump or his supporters with treason or insurrection without being laughed out of court, that agent of Democrat “lawfare” would have tried it.
I now look forward to the next question to be plucked from The Ethicist’s ol’ mail bag: “Is it ethical for me to send my children to the Arctic to be fostered by an Inuit family rather than subject them to the horrors of living in a nation led by Hitler?”
Ethics Alarms 
A friend of Mrs. OB has informed Mrs. OB she is considering moving from Arizona to “a blue state” together with her daughter and her daughter’s wife and some of her other children and their trans children because Arizona’s electoral college votes were won by Trump.
I’m friends with a few morons too….
And lo and behold, they are our moral and intellectual superiors! And we don’t even realize or acknowledge it!
The totalitarian left conducted a years long psychological operation against the American people forcing the perception that any who oppose their radical dogma, especially Trump, is clearly an enemy of everything they claim to hold dear. This operation was exposed for what it was and rejected by the majority, but it’s frightening to see that so many have succumbed to it. I remain uncertain if any of this can ever be reversed.
“I hold anyone voting for Trump at least morally guilty for the consequences of Jan. 6 and everything that follows the recent election.”
This statement is so mind-numbingly stupid that the professor’s apparent failure to address it reflects poorly on him.
“Moral guilt” for something that happened almost 4 years ago (January 6, 2021), cannot attach to actions occurring 3 weeks ago (November 5, 2024). With the exception of the example provided in the Series Finale of Star Trek: The Next Generation (All Good Things…), an awesome episode/finale by the way, causality does travel backwards in time.
Perhaps, one could argue that a vote in this year could constitute some sort of “ratification” of prior acts. (I know a guy that was so infuriated by January 6 that he swore off voting Republican; I don’t know how he voted this past election.) That kind of reasoning has some basis in law, logic and, probably, some episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. However, any sort of ratification theory would have to include that the vote in 2024 would have to ignore the 4 years of intervening events, or the prior 4 years of a relatively successful presidency. I was infuriated by the events of January 6; as Trump seems not to be an instigator, my outrage did not extend to him (at least, not for that); I was appalled by the constant hounding of an ex-President by politicians and the press, treatment that is probably without any precedent; I was disgusted by the lies that put Biden in office, kept him in office, and accompanied his removal from the ticket. My vote for Trump had absolutely nothing to do with January 6. However, to claim some sort of ratification would require a level of narrow-mindedness that would be difficult to maintain. I doubt Name Withheld is even that narrow-minded; if asked why Name Withheld voted for Harris (presumably), January 6 would likely be one of a dozen or so other excuses (Harris is historic; Harris speaks in complete sentences; Trump was liable for rape; convicted felon, etc.)
Maybe, just maybe, Name Withheld mean that a voter who voted for Trump in 2020 is morally guilty for the events of January 6. That does not seem to be borne out by the language quoted above. That interpretation holds the most validity. After all, January 6 followed shortly after and in relation to the 2020 election. Even then, the causal connection between a vote for Trump and the events of January 6 is tenuous. One could easily (and more credibly) argue that a vote AGAINST Trump in 2020 had a greater causal connection to the events of January 6 than a vote FOR him did. If Name Withheld (and all such like-minded individuals) had voted for Trump in 2020, the events of January 6 would have never happened. However, even that sort of consequentialist argument is tenuous.
The people responsible for January 6 are the people involved in January 6. I take no responsibility for their actions, make no excuse for them, and have consistently condemned them.
-Jut
And presumably, Jut, you condemn the apparent seemingly calculated and intentional inaction by Nancy Pelosi and the Department of Defense and others that exacerbated the riot.
Old Bill,
Yes, my understanding is that:
Thus, much of the condemnation for the scope of the riot should be directed at Pelosi’s apparent incompetence. The problem is that the press has been so untrustworthy that I am not certain that all three of those statements are true. Yet, all three should be easily verifiable as either true or false. But, if they are true, the press is either so dishonest or so spineless that it will not stand up to Pelosi and hold her accountable for her actions (just as it let’s her skate by on Biden’s withdrawal from the race).
Of course, this would be one of many possible “intervening and superseding” acts that separates a vote for Trump in 2020 from an endorsement of the events of January 6.
Unfortunately, it is also an example of how utterly wretched the press is when it comes to improving the quality of public discourse.
-Jut