Moral Dilemmas and the 2016 Presidential Election

Introduction

More than any year in recent history, Americans seemed to be faced with two bad choices for President.  And it just seems to be getting worse. Clinton's email scandals continue to increase while Trump's crude talk and inappropriate behavior has caused a rupture in the Republican party.  It seems like Americans have no good choice, maybe even no morally permissible choice.  But is this true?  Do we have a moral dilemma?

Ethical Theory

As I observe what especially Republican leaders are saying about their positions on Trump, I am reminded of my philosophical ethical training and how it's concepts may be useful for understanding where we are at in the political discourse.  The concepts come from normative ethical theory, which consists of views that largely fall into three camps:

• Consequentialism: whether an action is morally right or wrong depends solely on its consequences.
• Deontology: whether an action is morally right or wrong does not depend solely on its consequences.  Intentions, the inherent nature of the act, and other factors may contribute to its rightness or wrongness.
• Virtue ethics: whether an action is morally right or wrong depends on whether a morally virtuous agent would do it.  If so, the action is right.  If not, it is wrong.  The virtuous agent will usually consider consequences, the nature of the act, and so forth, but it is NOT necessary for two virtuous agents to arrive at the same conclusion.

With these theories in mind, think on what people have said about the two candidates. You have probably heard things like:

• "I don't like Donald Trump, but I can't vote for Hillary.  Trump is the lesser of the two evils."
• "Hillary isn't great, but she is better than Trump."
• "I can't vote for either candidate.  Voting for either of them would be wrong."

Consider this article for the Washington Post.  In it, Republican leaders say the following things regarding Trump:

• Newt Gingrich:
• “It’s time for him to send targeted messages to each district and state and have Republican voters ask their candidates: ‘Are you going to help us defeat Hillary Clinton?’ And Trump should make it clear that the side effect of not helping Trump is electing Hillary Clinton.”
• Paul Ryan:
• "Ryan said Monday that he would no longer defend or campaign with Trump. "
• Marco Rubio
• “I disagree with him on many things, but I disagree with his opponent on virtually everything,” Rubio said. “I wish we had better choices for President. But I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our next President. And therefore my position has not changed.”
• Marsha Blackburn
• “You don’t go after somebody who is, as Ronald Reagan would say, your 80 percent friend. What you do is stand with them... And it is not helpful to have this kind of drama going on. What you need to do is say we have a binary choice.”

Or this article on Jeb Bush:

• "I haven't made up my mind what I'm going to do — I'm going to vote and I've made it clear I'm not going to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton," Bush told reporters. "I'm not derelict in my civic duties, I'm going to vote, but the presidency is a place where, for whatever reason, I'm not comfortable supporting either party's nominee."

As seen above, some have taken the consequentialist route by advocating for the lesser of two evils (Gingrich, Rubio, Blackburn) while others have taken a more deontological approach (Ryan, Bush). 

Moral Dilemmas

How does this apply to moral dilemmas?  Let us simply define a moral dilemma to be a moral situation in which an agent must make a decision between two (or more) seemingly immoral courses of action.  How does the agent resolve the situation and make a decision?

The consequentialist always has a way out.  In fact, there is no such thing as a true moral dilemma for the consequentialist, since the right thing to do is always whatever is best consequentially (or least bad).  It is doubtful that the choices would be equally bad on one's estimation, so one can always determine which outcome to choose, no matter how bad it is.  Some of the above Republicans have made that decision: no matter what Trump does, Clinton would be consequentially worse, so they will vote for him.

The virtue ethicist always has a way out.  If you are a virtuous agent, then no matter what you decide, as long as you are making your decision exercising your virtue, you will make a correct or virtuous decision.  There may not be a the correct decision.  I bet that many such virtuous Americans will vote.  Some will vote for Clinton while other will vote for Trump, and in a certain sense, both kinds of votes will be morally correct.  Unless we are willing to say that no virtuous person could possibly vote for Trump, or no virtuous person could possibly vote for Clinton, then we have to allow for this possibility.

But what if one has a deontological bent?  What if one believes that voting for Clinton would be morally impermissible AND voting for Trump would also be morally impermissible?  That is, both candidates have crossed a certain moral threshold such that it would be wrong to vote for either?  This seems to be the stance that Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and other Republicans that have stepped away from Trump are taking.

The options available to those that find themselves in such a position seem to be:

• Don't vote: if you don't vote for either of them, you are not morally culpable.
• Vote for a third party: if you can't vote for either major party candidate and you want to or believe you must vote, then you have to find a third option to vote for.

In this way, the deontologist refuses to accept the terms of the moral dilemma as a forced choice between two or more morally impermissible options.  Instead, he or she finds another alternative or refuses to make any choice at all.

Conclusion

Truth be told, I am finding myself more and more in the deontological camp on this issue.  So I will likely vote third party.  For whom?   I have no idea.  But I feel much like Jeb Bush right now, and it is very sad.  In some sense, it doesn't really matter for me as I live in Washington state and it will assuredly be won by Clinton, so the pressure is off.  But if I were in a swing state, what would I do?  Go the consequentialist route and vote for the candidate I think will do the least harm no matter how much I dislike the candidate?  Or maintain ethical purity and vote for a third party, knowing full well that similar actions by others may result in my least favorite candidate taking office?

It's a tough choice.  It's a moral dilemma.