Ethics and the 2004 Election

By Crispin Sartwell

A basic distinction in philosophical ethics concerns the evaluation of persons as against the evaluation of actions. The former, which revolves around questions of character, is a tradition that stretches back to Plato and Aristotle. It's often called "virtue ethics." The latter often evaluates actions by their results. The utilitarians -- for example, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill -- assessed acts morally by whether they tended to increase or decrease the sum of human happiness.

I suggest that in the current presidential race, these two moral frameworks are in direct conflict. George Bush is the better man. John Kerry is the less disastrous maker of policy. Obviously, character and action are intertwined, and if someone very often does bad things, we think this shows who she is. Good acts are what we would expect a good person to do.

But they can come apart. Your moral character has something to do not only with what you do but how you do it. For example, a criminal can display courage, or forthrightness, or temperance, or loyalty. In fact, the more virtues he displays, the more effective criminal he is liable to be, and so the worse his actions. Bush's policies have, I suggest, been disastrous.

The Patriot Act and other legislation, as well as court cases brought by his evangelical Justice Department, constitute a serious attack on the American Constitution -- that is, on our basic form of government.

His tax cuts have plunged us into massive deficit spending.

His choices about where to intervene internationally have been morally indefensible: invading a quiescent Iraq while placating North Korea and doing nothing about genocide in the Sudan.

On the other hand, he has pursued these aims -- as well as many others that are much more morally defensible -- with clarity, steadfastness and at least some degree of political courage. He is, we might say, intrepid.

Now, I suspect that had John Kerry been president these last four years, he would not have attacked Iraq or enacted the Patriot Act or reduced taxes, though he would have followed the same course as Bush on Korea and Sudan. The actual results of his administration would have been better.

Of course, you would never know this to listen to him. His enthusiasm for Iraq is total, except when it isn't. In fact, he rubber-stamped almost every piece of legislation the Bush administration brought him, and he defends those votes, while at the same time attacking the policies he helped enact.

Kerry blows with the wind on matters of life and death, matters of fundamental human concern, including abortion, war, genocide and freedom. It is very hard to listen to him and believe that he believes anything, except very passionately that he should be president. Kerry is the deepest sort of moral coward.

It's the cowardice, though, that has the good results. Things like attacking Iraq require the willingness to assume extreme risk. Were he president, Kerry would never take any action so dramatic, even if he himself regarded it as absolutely morally obligatory.

When it comes to choosing a leader, both aspects -- character and results -- are important. And they are often intertwined, as for example Rudy Giuliani showed after Sept. 11.

But this time, it almost comes down to a pure choice. Kerry is unlikely to be able to inspire anyone to do anything. But Bush is liable to inspire us to do evil.