Post-ethical America?

When bad stuff seems "normal," you've got a problem

“Jared Kushner Solicits Funds for His Firm While Working as Mideast Envoy.” This was the headline of a March 13 New York Times article. Anyone who worked for the US government in pre-Trump days, as I did, knows perfectly well that someone entrusted with arguably the most sensitive US negotiations is not supposed to use that as a lever for personal enrichment. Indeed, concern about the risk of corruption of government officials has a long history in the US, permeating, for example, the Federalist Papers, notably those written by Alexander Hamilton.

In other times, I would have been screaming from the rafters about Kushner’s outrageous and unacceptable conduct. But, just as the Times article took a rather bland and factual tone, so did I. “Oh well, more of same” describes my reaction. A reaction that has me worried.

“Normalizing” actions like Kushner’s, which are in fact typical of the current Administration, can be a form of self-defense for those who have to live with them. Humans can adapt to amazingly stressful, even very threatening situations. And one is not necessarily conscious of that adaptation as it happens.

In 1983-84, for example, I served at the US Embassy in Beirut. It was, among other things, the time when 241 US Marines and other service members, plus a Lebanese civilian, were killed in the suicide bombing of the Marine barracks at Beirut airport. (Often forgotten in the US is that, two minutes later, 58 French soldiers also were killed in a similar bombing attack.) The noise of shots, artillery fire, and explosions was constant. When I first arrived, my fight or flight reaction was constantly triggered. But I adapted. The threatening noises became a weird sort of background music, my new normal. My radius of perceived threat shrank until I only worried about things that were REALLY close. It was, I suppose, a helpful survival mechanism.

But there is such a thing as too much adaptation, when normalization of unacceptable acts becomes acceptance. Both Trump Administrations have counted on this effect. And it is serving them well, if my own reaction to the Kushner news is any indication.

One way humans have dealt with this risk is by establishing ethical codes, which stand outside the mere desires of individuals. Ancient philosophers in the West, for example, accepted that acquiring things could be part of a happy and valuable life, but our desired ends and goals need to be evaluated: “Which are important to our lives as a whole and which are not, and which ends [should we] reconceive, restrain, abandon altogether, or newly introduce because of how they fit (or fail to fit) with others.” The good life, in other words, requires attention to others, and not all our goals are good ones. We should be virtuous people. In government and in professions like medicine or the law, there is a historical focus on deontological ethics, i.e. rules for what we should do. Think of the Hippocratic Oath or of the oath that commissioned officers of the United States take to “support and defend the Constitution.”

We’re in a historical moment where we often treat things as “good” simply because they correspond to or facilitate achievement of our personal desires. Self-actualization is treated as the ultimate objective, and whatever promotes our self-actualization is good. Call it arrogance, blind self-interest, or navel-staring, but it’s an essentially anti-ethical view, which constantly underpins the statements and actions of the Administration. And that sort of validation from the top poses real societal risks.

More attention to ethical thinking would be a good thing. I don’t expect people to turn suddenly and en masse to the works of great ethical thinkers like Plato, Kant, or Bertrand Russell. But the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides boiled down versions that are quite accessible. (The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy frankly can be heavy lifting.)

There’s even a popular television program that offers a great stimulus to thinking about ethics. I’m a late adopter of The Good Place, an NBC series that ran from 2016 to 2020. It can be remarkably funny, but also deals in a genuinely serious way with questions like: What is the good life? What is our responsibility to others? Can we improve ourselves and help others improve themselves? The fact that both humans and demons are involved helps make it fun. Perhaps just talking about ethics, and not worrying too much about Plato et al., is a good place to start.