Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Everyone agrees that the consequences of our actions matter morally—but some people think that only the consequences matter. According to consequentialism, we ought to do what has the best consequences, and it doesn’t matter if that involves lying, or stealing, or even killing an innocent person. Nothing is forbidden for the consequentialist, all that matters is the consequences of what is done. Can this view be right? Surely there are some things that we should never do no matter what the consequences! We have here one of the fundamental disagreements in the history of moral philosophy, with deontologists, such as Kant, arguing that there are rules that should be followed even when the consequences are very bad, and some things that we must never do even if the consequences are disastrous, and consequentialists, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, arguing that we should decide what to do on the basis of consequences alone. Contemporary philosophers have not reached agreement on the issue, and a quick look at the contents of any ethics journal will confirm that we are still fighting our corners with gusto. The issue is not merely academic: the debate that is currently going on about the acceptability of torture can be understood as a debate about whether or not there are some things that are morally unjustifiable no matter what the consequences.

(Elinor Mason, "What Is Consequentialism?," Think 21 [spring 2009]: 19-28, at 19 [italics in original])

Note from KBJ: Mason says that "Contemporary philosophers have not reached agreement on the issue" of consequentialism versus deontology. But even if they had, it wouldn't follow that they are correct or that the issue is no longer worth discussing. Issues don't go away or get resolved just because a particular group of people at a particular time share a view and think alternative views false or absurd. For one thing, the reason they agree may be political rather than philosophical. (Has anyone asked whether the "consensus" among scientists that the globe is warming is rooted in politics rather than science? How do we know that it's not rooted in politics?) All of which is to say that truth is not a matter of nose-counting. Neither philosophy nor science is a democracy.

Here.

Here.

I'm glad George H. W. and Barbara Bush lived long enough to see their family repudiated by the American people. The elder Bush gave us eight years of Bill Clinton and the younger Bush gave us eight years of Barack Obama. That's 16 years of hell from which it will take decades to recover (if indeed we ever do recover).

To the editor:

What are we to make of the plan to increase minority nominees for the Oscars by diversifying the electors in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? ("Film academy makes dramatic rule changes to address diversity," Jan. 22)

Diversification is laudable; every such organization should resemble the broad population if specific criteria for membership, those based on specialized knowledge or skill set, accommodate it.

The idea that more minority electors will increase the chances of minority nominees is freighted with racism, however, for it suggests that minority electors will choose nominees on the basis of race, precisely what we are trying to avoid. Subjective judgments, those applied to the choice of Oscar winners, escape any objective scale.

The academy should also avoid a racial set-aside, for that diminishes the idea of merit.

Paul Bloustein, Cincinnati

American journalism is a disgrace. Journalists aren't content to report the news and allow their readers, listeners, and viewers to make up their own minds. Instead, they try to influence people's behavior. I support Donald Trump's decision to skip Thursday night's debate in Des Moines and I will not watch the debate. Megyn Kelly is as slimy a journalist as they come. I would have watched the debate in spite of her presence if Trump were present, but now that he's out, I'm out.

Another dishonest journalist is CNN's Sara Murray, who covers Trump. Tonight, at Trump's press conference, she asked Trump about his "marital infidelities," and a few minutes ago, on Anderson Cooper's show (which has a guest host tonight), she explained why she asked. It's because Trump has been critical of Bill Clinton's infidelities. That's right: She characterized Bill Clinton's behavior as infidelity. This is despicable. Bill Clinton wasn't just unfaithful to his wife; he assaulted and harassed many women over a period of many years, and may, for all we know, still be doing it. The reason this matters is that Clinton's wife, Hillary, who portrays herself as a feminist, searched out and destroyed Bill's victims because they threatened her and her husband's power. Journalists such as Murray are trying to turn Clinton's criminality, which is gravely serious, into infidelity, which is a peccadillo. They're doing this because they know that Hillary's facilitation of Bill's criminality hurts Hillary's presidential campaign. Trump must not let them get away with it.

As I've been saying for many years (both in this blog and elsewhere), free trade has been a disaster for this country. Republicans like it because they're beholden to powerful corporations. Democrats like it because they're cosmopolitans.

Here.

Here.