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

In the fourth century B.C., Plato and Aristotle wrestled with “what is truth?” Plato hypothesized that truth resides in the mind and is accessed through contemplation.

On the other hand, Aristotle hypothesized that truth is revealed through empirical evidence. Many years later, a 14th-century enlightened world accepted Aristotle’s empiricism as superior in determining truth.

Empiricism has helped us discern truth in the troubled presidencies of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. Mr. Clinton declared, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” However, DNA proved that it was his semen on her dress. Mr. Nixon declared, “I am not a crook.” However, audio recordings proved that he knew about the break-in of the Watergate offices of the DNC and then lied to cover it up.

Most Americans do not wish to think ill of elected officials. Nevertheless, it seems that President Donald Trump’s shortcomings regarding the truth are self-evident. Not only do his tweets lack empirical truth, but he directs White House aides Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Miller to make excuses for his inflammatory comments.

News reporters are beginning to confront their dismissive answers. Jake Tapper silenced Mr. Miller’s microphone when he refused to cease his overbearing discourse. When Ms. Conway stated that “nobody” in the White House talks about Hillary Clinton, Chris Cuomo retorted in a tweet, “Hey Kellyanne . . . is ‘nobody’ new potus code name?” Moreover, Dutch reporters showed no tolerance for the U.S. ambassador’s obstructive excuses, essentially saying, “American journalists might allow evasive answers, but we here in the Netherlands are tougher.”

JANE OFFUTT

Mt. Lebanon

Note from KBJ: This is the cartoon version of the history of philosophy.

Our economy is better than it has been in many decades. Businesses are coming back to America like never before. Chrysler, as an example, is leaving Mexico and coming back to the USA. Unemployment is nearing record lows. We are on the right track!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 28, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Whereas my own theory would make the social welfare function the arithmetic mean of individual utilities, Rawls . . . has proposed a social welfare function based on the maximin principle, and always measuring the welfare level of society by the utility level of the worst-off individual. This means mathematically that Rawls's social welfare function would always assign infinitely more weight to the interests of the poorest, or otherwise least fortunate, members of society than it assigns to the richer, or otherwise more fortunate, members. In contrast, my own social welfare function would always assign the same weight to equally urgent needs of different individuals, regardless of their social or economic positions. But of course since, typically, poor people have many more unfilled urgent wants than rich people do, in practice in most cases my own social welfare function will lead to similar policy decisions to Rawls's, because it will give much higher priority to poor people's needs. Only in those, rather special, cases where some rich people may have even more urgent needs than some poor people do, will my social welfare function lead to opposite policy decisions. However, precisely in these cases I feel that my social welfare function would lead to the morally right decisisons [sic] while Rawls's would lead to morally wrong ones.

For example, if a philanthropist has to decide whether to give $100 in cash, or the same value in food, or in clothing, etc., to a poor man or to a millionaire, it is clear that he should choose the poor man since the former will have a much greater need for extra cash, or for extra food, or for extra clothing, etc. But if he has to choose between giving a life-saving drug in short supply to a poor man or to a millionaire, then the only relevant consideration must be who needs it more, i.e., who could derive the greater medical benefit from it. Surely, it would be highly immoral discrimination against the millionaire to refuse him a life-saving drug, even though he has the best claim to it from a medical point of view, merely on the ground that he happens to be a millionaire. Yet, Rawls's social welfare function would force us precisely to engage in such immoral discriminatory practices in some, rather special, but perhaps not-all-too-rare, cases.

(John C. Harsanyi, "Nonlinear Social Welfare Functions," Theory and Decision 6 [August 1975]: 311-32, at 318-9 [endnote omitted; ellipsis added; italics in original])

Yesterday evening, Katherine and I watched Hostiles (2017) at a nearby theater. It was amazingly good. The acting was superb (Christian Bale's performance is worthy of an Academy Award); the plot was interesting; the scenery (it was filmed in New Mexico and Colorado) was gorgeous; and the action was riveting. I wish they made more movies like this and fewer with superheroes and monsters.

Here is the trailer.

Here.

Here.

This moron needs a civics lesson. His understanding of our system of government is abysmal. The point of the United States Constitution is to stop things from getting done. James Madison would be appalled at the ignorance of today's young people.

To the editor:

President Trump has lied so much that almost all of his pronouncements are suspect. ("Trump ordered Mueller fired last year before backing off, news report says," Jan. 25.)

He has denied that he ordered the firing of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III last summer, calling it "fake news." I believe and trust the New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream outlets, all of whom have verified the story. They can hardly afford to play into Trump's game by publishing fake news and suffering a blow to their credibility.

I believe the Los Angeles Times behaves similarly, as it should.

Every time the president lies about an important subject, some people in the administration know it. I have never worked for a serial liar, but I imagine it could be daunting if the employee has any moral acuity. Trump's surrogates, who repeat and amplify his pronouncements, are obviously not caught in that kind of ethical dilemma.

If there is fake news out there, it comes from right-wing outlets that publish outlandish conspiracy theories that get quickly blown up by real news.

Stu Olster, Laguna Hills

Note from KBJ: I can't think of a single lie told by Donald Trump. What in the world does Stu Olster mean by "lied"? Perhaps he just means, "Donald Trump said something with which I disagree," or "Donald Trump said something I don't like," or even, "Donald Trump said something, and I hate him, so he lied." Get some professional help, Stu.

I have offered DACA a wonderful deal, including a doubling in the number of recipients & a twelve year pathway to citizenship, for two reasons: (1) Because the Republicans want to fix a long time terrible problem. (2) To show that Democrats do not want to solve DACA, only use it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 28, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Thomas Nagel is part of the philosophical establishment in the same way that David Gergen is part of the political establishment. To show you how much has changed with regard to sexual attitudes in just 23 years, read what Nagel wrote in "Personal Rights and Public Space," Philosophy & Public Affairs 24 (spring 1995): 83-107, at 106:

Regarding harassment, I believe real care is needed to stay with the original meaning of the term. That does not include the expression of sexual interest, even if unwanted, unless it persists beyond reason, or is backed up by an abuse of authority. Nor does it include sexual compliments or evident sexual appreciation. The toleration of sexual feelings should include a certain margin of freedom for their expression, even if it sometimes gives offense, and even though it will often impose the unpleasant task of rejection on its target. Adults should be able to take care of themselves.

I'm neither endorsing nor repudiating what Nagel says; I'm simply pointing out that there has been a sea change in attitudes in the past two decades. Women wonder why there should be any expressions of sexual interest toward them in the workplace. They say that when they are complimented or "appreciated" sexually, they are being degraded (de-graded). They are at work to work, not to flirt or be flirted with. They would ask Nagel how he would feel if, while at work, he had to fend off sexual advances (or deflect sexual attention) from colleagues. There is a time and place for flirting; work is not that place.