By Harold W. Anderson, Ph.D., M.A., M.Div.
I have never lived in a country ruled by a dictator. Basically, in a dictatorship, anyone who does not agree with the dictator is considered an enemy and dealt with as such. Since policy under a dictator is at the whim of the dictator, no one really knows who the enemy is going to be from one day to another. Dictators are…well, creepy…and seem to lack even the minimal amount of decency to govern. It is for this reason that I have always been thankful that I live in a democracy, the Constitution of which was designed to have checks and balances meant to prevent any one branch of government, or any one group, or any one person from having unbridled power. In other words, our Constitution was meant to prevent a dictator or a king from ever coming to power.
Today, it seems, this is being called into question. If the MAGA folks have their way, Donald will reign supreme and if the 2025 Project is implemented, he will be endowed with almost unlimited powers that erases many of the checks and balances put into place by the framers of our Constitution. True to form, Donald seems to take his playbook from some of the world’s most infamous dictators including Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and he tends to idolize the tough men of today’s world including Vladamir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, and Rodrigo Duterte among others. To this end, Donald tried to subvert the 2020 election putting an end to this country’s honorable record of a peaceful transfer of power; he has used his bully pulpit to intimidate witnesses, spread lies, cast dispersions about others with misogynistic and racist remarks, and telling so many lies it is difficult to determine if he ever tells the truth; he has tried to politicize the justice department to go after those disloyal to him, and if the 2025 Project is implemented, he will be given the power to do just exactly that; he has abused pardon power by “eschewing the regular process and almost never consulting with the Justice Department’s clemency office, leading to some highly controversial pardons” (see “Chronicalling Trump’s 10 worst abuses of power“); he has used his power to cover up alleged violations of the law and his oath of office; he has fired whistleblowers and truth-tellers; and he has vilified the press calling the news “fake news” while calling his fake news news. In addition to all of this, he has a reputation of being a womanizer, a reputation he has affirmed, and he regularly puts down people with mental illness and makes fun of them and he casts aspersions on veterans by calling them “losers” and other derogatory remarks. Like the dictators of the world, Donald seems to lack even the minimal decency standards needed to govern.
This is more alarming when one considers the almost inexplicable marriage between the Republican Party and Dominionism, a theological movement begun by Rousas John Rushdoony and formalized by the New Apostolic Reformation. Called “Christian Nationalism,” this group combines religious doctrine with political ends and argues that the United States is a Christian nation, and its laws and constitution should be founded on biblical values if not the laws codified in the pages of scripture. Donald’s endorsement of the Lee Greenwood Bible is an endorsement of this “religious” movement. In this, he goes out of his way to court the religious right, a transactionalism that seems to cast a spell over evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who belive Donald is immune to ethical and moral accountability.
My question, then, is this: Shouldn’t we hold our leaders—political and religious—to at least a minimal amount of decency? I think we should. We should be able to trust our leaders. We should be able to trust that they will tell us the truth and quit lying. I understand that some things can’t be discussed, but tell us that. I know that sometimes the truth is difficult and puts us in awkward situations, but managing those situations in an honest way is what leadership is all about. Lies, no matter how “little” the lie might be are rarely appropriate. If our leaders are caught in improprieties, then they should be held accountable, and if the offense is a violation of law, then they should be tried in a court of law with a jury of their peers regardless of whether they are serving in office. Impeachment can be a part of this process, but it is never a substitute for a court of law. Matters of law are NOT political issues. A leader should treat people with respect. Our enemies are our enemies. Even so, they are human beings and demand the respect that human beings should have. This is the purpose for warfare provisions such as the Geneva Convention. All of this is to say, that we should demand good leadership of our leaders, and good leadership means being at least a minimally decent person.
To this end, then, what is a minimally decent person? I have already tipped my hat in this regard but let me address this in a more systematic way.
For many of us, ethics is a matter of determining what is right and what is wrong. While this sounds easy, for any caught in an ethical dilemma, it can become quite complex. I suppose this is why so many books have been written guiding business leaders, religious leaders and even political leaders in the art of being ethical. In the more than 23 years that I have been teaching ethics, I have taught my students that there are all types of ethical theories, and determining whether one is decent or not depends in part upon which one of these theories one embraces. A deontologist like Emmanuel Kant holds that we think in terms of universal moral laws that always apply under any circumstance. They think that if we ought to tell the truth, then truth is always demanded even when it is an uncomfortable truth. A virtue ethicist like Alasdair MacIntyre, on the other hand, determines the meaning of values based upon how they develop historically in the community. If historically a community—as ours does—pardons “white” lies but condemns lying in general, then it is up to the community to define a white lie so that everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not. And then there are consequentialists like John Stewart Mill. For thinkers such as him, morality is determined by the amount of harm or benefit an act does to the greatest number of people. If harmful, it is deemed unethical; if beneficial, it is deemed ethical. On the other hand, someone like Richard Rorty might take a more pragmatic approach and argue that goodness is relative to the debate of those involved in the decision-making process.
However, one needs to note something that is common to all these theories. The end never justifies the means. That is, what is good is based upon the merits of the moment however interpreted, not the end embraced by the would-be ethical actor. Put differently, as an ethical person I will never try and rationalize a behavior based upon the merit of a goal. For example, as a businessperson, making money is my goal. I have discovered, however, that making claims about my product that “stretch” the truth makes me more money. I then use my heightened sales and the money it makes to justify the lie. In response to this, ethical theories would hold that it is not the end of making money that determines the ethics of my business, but the act of lying itself. I cannot by virtue of making money hold that my lie is justified. But if I were to focus on my product and improve it as well as my marketing strategies, I may find that I also make more money. Focusing on the means and not the end may produce the same results, i.e., making money but doing so in a ethical way.
Claims are never independent of relationships and the nature of these relationships reveals the type of person I am.
Given this, it seems that the most fundamental formulation of minimal decency is not found in the idea that the end justifies the means. Rather, the fundamental nature of minimal decency is determined by the means justifies the end. As such, this is condemnation of all transactionalism where “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” is roundly condemned. If one digs a little deeper into this, rejecting transactionalism and ends justifies the means thinking and behaviors means that one begins to understand the meaning of character.
While ethical considerations traditionally revolve around ethical agency who is the person committing the acts, all but perhaps deontological theory teaches us that ethics is more than an individual issue. Indeed, it involves the relationships that comprise the community of which the person is a part. Put differently, if we are to consider character, we look not only to the individual, but to the reactions and thoughts of the community of which they are a part. So, for example, if I claim to be an honest person, but my behaviors—which are disseminated in the community of which I am a part—betray my claims, then I cannot claim to be an honest person. Likewise, if I claim to be a trustworthy person but live like a charlatan, my less than trustworthy behaviors betray me as a charlatan and the people I betray become the judges of my character. Claims are never independent of relationships and the nature of these relationships reveals the type of person I am.
This is why ends justifies the means does not and cannot fit into ethical values. Ends justifies the means turns our attention from the behavior and the person(s) it impacts and places it on principles, beliefs, or ideals that may be morally irrelevant to the acts committed. This is what is happening, I think, in the MAGA movement and explains why otherwise decent people support an openly scandalous person making excuses for his improprieties and condemning the pillars of democracy to keep this twice impeached and indicted felon in office. They are not looking to the relational consequences of his behaviors and the myriads of people who have been threatened, hurt, or offended, and whose well-being is jeopardized because of his words, his lies, and his behaviors. The end hides the ethical issues and justifies indecency in the name of “higher” ideals concerning abortion, race, women, sexuality, religion, etc. If such transactionalism were put aside and the focus was placed upon the acts and how they affect the community that is impacted by them, then it matters little whether the ends are “higher ideals.” What matters is people and how words and behaviors either threaten or benefit their lives.
It is in the context of human relationships that ethical values are identified and minimally decent character is determined. If people are to determine the character of a person, they must focus on the people this person impacts and how the impacted ones perceive the person’s behaviors. Stealing a page from Kantian ethics, I might want to ask, “If I was this person/group/organization, etc., how would this make me feel? Would I like it, or would I not? Is what I am experiencing something I would want to extend to all around me?” Notice that nowhere in this decision-making process is a “worthy end” taken into consideration. The focus is on what is happening now. The means justifies the end. If a person acts responsibly, tells the truth and treats others with respect, then others will judge them to be at least a minimally decent character. It is a minimally decent character that we must demand from both our religious and political leaders. We dare not rationalize their improprieties based upon the ethical blinders of “worthy ends.”
I do not want to live in an autocracy where a dictator or king reigns supreme. Such a government is devoid of the checks and balances necessary to assure that people live in freedom, enjoy the providential rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and are protected from unwarranted harassment on the part of government or others living in our society. The transactionalism (i.e., “the end justifies the means”) of an autocracy measures equality based upon the feckless nature of loyalty that changes with the wind. It is not equality that unites but is one that divides and conquers. I am thrilled that I live in a constitutional democracy where there is a division of powers, the intent of which is to sew checks and balances into the very fabric of political life. I enjoy my religious freedoms that allow me to worship how I want, who I want or worship not at all without retribution by the government. I am thankful that the community in which I live is a community of exploration where questions are continuously asked that we might look to a future where equality is not simply a dream, but a reality for all regardless ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and country of origin. The society in which I live is not perfect and demands the participation of all people that we might learn how to move forward. If this is to happen, however, our leaders must be minimally decent people. They must be leaders who live for the people and eschew the blinders of “worthy ends.” For only then will our democracy survive.