Superheroes & Villains: Diary of a Mad Ethics Professor
by Christopher Robichaud on October 17, 2007 in Diary of a Mad Ethics Professor
Dear Professor:
I’ve had several opportunities at KSG to debate, either in print or on video, high-profile issues, like whether torture under some conditions should be allowed. I have strong opinions about these things, but worry that publicly taking a stand on them might jeopardize my future political aspirations. What should I do?
Sincerely,
Conflicted Conscience
Dear Conflicted Conscience,
I appreciate the fact that by attending a school of politics, you—and most of your peers—are very sensitive about what the political ramifications might be for supporting or opposing certain politically-charged positions. I accept, in other words, that there are some prudential (rather than moral) considerations to take into account when deciding when to go on record about a certain matter. But that said, I wonder if these prudential considerations are a bit overstated. Suppose you, like Jack Bauer, think it’s okay to torture someone if, say, the fate of Los Angeles rests in the balance. You argue as much in print and ten years later, when running for Congress or another public office, someone brings this up to be used against you. In the realm of the prudential, if this is the worst thing your opponents can muster—not preposterous votes or corrupt associations, but a decade-old op-ed from the Citizen—then trust me, you’re golden.
You’re golden even if you’ve completely changed your mind since then. After all, we want our public officials to be reflective thinkers—and how can they do that without at least sometimes arriving at different conclusions than the ones they once held? Don’t let the flip-flop tag thwart you: if down the road considered reflection on torture has led you to change your views and embrace a no-torture-no-matter-what stance, then so be it. That displays intellectual virtue, not vice (and not because of the conclusion you reached, but because of the process that led you there).
Moving into the moral realm, I endorse a conception of the political actor that requires her to articulate the normative dimensions of her positions and policies. I take it this is one of the reasons why KSG includes a course on ethics as part of its core: not because students need to be taught how to be ethical—that’s preposterous—but because students need to get comfortable defending the moral aspects of their views. I don’t see how a state composed of persons with different conceptions of the good is to function properly if its citizens and their elected representatives don’t openly do this. So unless there are pressing prudential considerations to the contrary—not just vague worries about what might happen down the road—it’s a duty for you, and for the many peers who share your political aspirations, to publicly get into the moral thick of it here and now.
Comments
Got something to say?
