Top News, Articles, and Interviews in Philosophy

Republicans Should Defend Trump, Just Differently

Philosophy News image
Image Credit While some think that Trump is beyond defense and that the Republicans should be damned for siding with him, I contend that the Republicans are right to vigorously defend Trump. What I disagree with is how they are doing it. The president, regardless of who holds the office, has the right to a fair, impartial and objective impeachment process. This includes a vigorous defense on the part of those who would take up the president’s cause, mostly typically the president’s party members. One reason for this is the presumption of innocence. While this is a principle for criminal trials, it is a good general moral principle to apply in any case where a person is accused and can face consequences. As part of American moral philosophy, we have adopted this principle and it is sensible to apply it consistently and thus it also applies to Trump. This presumption requires that a proper process be followed to prove that a person is guilty and if it fails, then the person should be regarded as innocent. If Trump were not defended, this would amount to a presumption of guilt—which would be unfair even if the president is guilty. A vigorous defense is also important to maintain the commitment to the process—that the political battles will not fall into a sort of state of nature in which all that matters is might. Even if the outcome is certain, it is important to maintain a commitment to a proper and ideally a fair process. As always, one should apply the Golden Rule and consider that while someone they might hate or love is the target of impeachment, the next time the opposite could prove true. If we believe in truth, justice and the American way, then we must accept that the president is entitled to a vigorous defense. However, this does not entail that all defenses are justified. Since I value truth and good reasoning, I am appalled by the usual tools of immoral politics—lies, misused rhetoric and fallacies. Ideally, these should not be employed to. . .

Continue reading . . .

News source: A Philosopher's Blog

blog comments powered by Disqus