IN in 2016, it was easy for the left wing to handle the Donald Trump election as a vampire. Thanks to the election university, he has essentially won the technology. However, when he re -assumed this month after acquiring a US popular poll, there is a feeling that all his actions are accompanied by the implicit approval of the polls.
Of course, Trump is far from the first American leader accused of cruelty. The impressive thing about him is that he will not pretend to be otherwise. The president of the recent memory that paid a lip service at least compassionate. The new one eliminates his brand and is bullying. He seems to celebrate that we violate the basic rules taught from childhood. We are kind to others, share resources, and welcome those who think they are different.
The result was a sense of alienation from its own country for those who voted against him. How can neighbors have such a fundamental opinion on the seemingly basic concept of justice and justice? We always remember that the government is politically polarized, but the country’s response to Trump 2.0 seems to be more than a crack than the policy. It raises doubts: Is Americans working under completely different moral norms?
It is not a political question, but an ethical problem. To solve it, the Guardian talked to some moral philosopher before inauguration -and surprisingly united with their reactions. They said at the most basic level, there are more agreements than we think.
Moral similarity
Desirame, an associate professor of Pennsylvania’s philosophy, explained some ways to understand our moral similarities and differences. First of all, there are people who can never die in our opinions. “There is a voter of Trump, a complete white supremeist, and I think it’s really impossible to make their code in harmony with my code in some sense,” she said. But in many cases, we have similar values (for example, freedom, security, equality, etc.). “Security may be more important than freedom and equality, and I intend to sacrifice freedom and equality for more security,” she said.
There may also be different interpretations on the meaning of these values. For some people, security may mean strict measures at the border, but for others it may be related to food security and shelters. “One of the biggest tragedies in polarization in American politics is that people can’t see what people really want,” said Rim.
Zoe Johnson King, an assistant professor of Harvard University philosophy, agreed that some of the political spectrums in the United States were remarkably consistent. For example, there is an agreement that the threat to democracy is fundamentally different, but it is very important. Of course, some powerful people acted with malicious intent among those who mistakenly claimed that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, but the wrong information was extended and Trump was Trump. In an environment that claims to win, some people really believed that the election was stolen.
“They got what I thought about what the democracy was,” said Johnson King. “But they really care about democracy, and as well, there are quite a few general agreements at the level of values, as well as freedom and equality.”
However, she said, “The point of the difference in opinion naturally draws all attention.” “They raise these imminent practical questions.” “It’s necessary to answer these practical questions to understand how to live together, which is where all of our attention is.”
Daniel Allen, a professor at James Bryant Connant, a Harvard University, the Allen Lab’s director to renovate school democracy, “Our election system is more than the reality of the American population. It is turned.
Hit the bargain
Even if the moral compass of people matches, ethics cannot be searched for a leader that matches themselves. In some respects, what you can do is a privilege. Voters who are concerned about the ability to buy food may feel the need to vote completely.
In this way, several philosopher pointed out, the voting is a kind of bargain, even at the expense. People may tolerate the actions and values they oppose to get what they want. For some people, it may be the living expenses. For others, it may be a single pet policy. For others, it may be a desire for change, or that they have been denied American politics for a long time.
Skana Hillji, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, states: “People are very desperate, I want to see all kinds of changes, I feel a lot of frustration, and I felt that Trump was verifying that frustration and speaking out.”
As a result, it is easy to interpret the large -scale union of Trump voters as monolis, as many philosopher pointed out. Johnson King probably provided a more accurate way to see it. Same behavior: Vote for Trump. “
“Complex species”
We are not morally monolithic as an individual. Dutcher Keltner, a professor at California University Berkeley School, and the author of Power Paradox Dutcher Keltner: The way we lose and lose is a solid believer, and he is “others”. It is defined as a useful behavior for interest. “My own”. He and a few colleagues pointed out the understanding of Aristotle’s good. We value courage, generous, and honesty. Celtner’s values of Makabeli are “self -interest, forced. , All about control. “
“We are very good. According to the survey, we share 40 % of resources with strangers, the children regularly help others, and the first day of life by shouting others. While crying, he’s that we care about, “he wrote in email. “And thanks to the evolution, we are greedy, greedy, violent, slaughtered, narcissistic. We are complicated species.”
It depends on the political moment that either side wins in the voting booth. “The specific context supports the rise of more dominant and forced power to the co -compassionate power,” said Celtner. In those contexts, “economic inequality, sense of lack of resources, distrust in social and political systems, immersion in new social media, and more powerful laughter in power, politics and society. He says he is studying the way to strengthen his views.
Others have acknowledged the same moral complexity.
The rim considers humans as “for stability, mutualism, and cooperation.” For example, applying fascism is not very good.
On the other hand, Johnson King believes that humans are good for “partial credit.” “It’s too simple to ask someone who goes to a bucket” good person “and a bucket” bad person “,” she said. People have a wide range of moral beliefs and decision -making principles. We have little difficulty to see this nuance among friends and family, but for politics, it is much easier to simply reduce the people around us to good or bad.
Also, as HIRJI pointed out, our moral behavior is not in the vacuum of individualism. It depends on the community. “If you’re just trying to do it yourself, you won’t be a good person,” she said. “We need a good and well -functioning political community that helps the virtue and its citizens, helping such things.”
Other philosopher also emphasized the importance of the environment. If our leaders are mostly good, we have a good tendency, and if they are almost bad, we tend to be bad, even if we are not aware of their influence. I quote Aristotle’s views. Humans are sticking to imitate. That is how we learn. (It may help explain the explosion of poisonous online behavior in recent years.)
Hillji said, if other people felt troublesome, we should not hurry to blame the individual. “I think this problem is a kind of systematic. It seems that they are concerned about the people’s daily situation, and the needs of these people. What is the institution? “
When looking back on the elections, Hillji added that he needs to resist “fascinating and simple” take, saying, “It’s really important to fight the story so that we can actually have a future solution. I think.
Ultimately, we don’t know how they can pass the hearts of others when they vote. “People don’t vote based on moral norms, and they don’t think they will vote,” said Rim. “In my opinion, Trump is successful, because he can remind the emotions of other people who cannot do it.” Probably a more moral question because we are facing the country, not a decision in the November ballot box, but how to confront the already in the form of crisis.
