reading

Philosophy Now: Presidential Decision-Making

Introduction to Presidential Ethics

  • Philosophy Now: A magazine discussing ethical dilemmas in presidential decision-making, comparing two ethical frameworks: Utilitarianism and Duty Ethics.

  • Historical Context: Evaluates decisions from U.S. presidents, including: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman, and George W. Bush.

    • Focuses on ethical questions in these administrations, particularly the moral dilemmas faced.

    • The assessment of a president's success is often linked to their ethical decision-making processes.

Ethical Frameworks Analyzed

Utilitarianism

  • Definition: A moral theory aimed at achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

    • Early Utilitarians attempted to measure pleasure and pain quantitatively to determine societal benefit.

    • Critique: The complexity and subjectivity of calculating societal pleasure and pain rendered this approach ineffective.

  • Contemporary Utilitarianism: Shifted from measuring pleasure and pain to a focus on outcomes.

    • Key Principle: Actions should lead to a net positive impact on society, with benefits outweighing harms.

Duty Ethics (Kantian Ethics)

  • Immanuel Kant's Philosophy:

    1. Rational Process: Ethics are determined through reason; humans must use intelligence to define moral actions.

    2. Truth-Telling: Honesty is paramount; social relations require a commitment to truth.

    3. Categorical Imperative:

    • People should act as if their behavior were a model for all humanity.

    • Individuals must be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end.

  • Application: Presidents must balance utilitarian approaches with a Kantian commitment to moral integrity and respect for individuals.

Case Studies in Ethical Decision-Making

Abraham Lincoln: Ethics of Slavery

  • Opposition to Slavery: Lincoln's anti-slavery stance was based on both Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism.

    • Kantian Grounds: Argued against slavery using the categorical imperative; supporting slavery would mean accepting one’s own subjugation.

    • Utilitarian Grounds: Viewed slavery as harmful to the overall good of society; slavery’s negative outcomes outweighed its perceived benefits.

  • Constitutional Dilemma: His oath to preserve the Constitution conflicted with his moral views on slavery.

  • Resolution: Issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, freeing slaves in rebel states, while maintaining legal slavery in others to stay within constitutional bounds.

    • Proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery universally, which later became the 13th Amendment.

Harry S. Truman: Hiroshima and Reconstruction

  • Decision to Use Atomic Bomb: Analyzed under a utilitarian framework as his strategy to end WWII.

    • Faced with the choice to invade Japan or use the bomb, Truman believed utilizing the bomb would minimize overall casualties, saving lives in the long run.

    • Estimates indicated a potential 500,000 to 1,000,000 Allied casualties from invasion versus immediate Japanese fatalities from the bomb.

  • Marshall Plan:

    • An ethical decision to provide financial aid for Europe’s recovery post-WWII, exemplifying Kant’s categorical imperative by addressing the needs of a devastated community.

  • Civil Rights Initiatives: Advocated for racial equality and desegregation, expressing the Kantian notion that discrimination cannot be a universally accepted principle.

    • Actions included desegregating military forces and supporting legislation to combat lynching.

Summary and Conclusion

  • Significance of Ethical Decision-Making in Presidency:

    • Both Lincoln and Truman utilized a combination of utilitarian and Kantian principles in pivotal decisions.

    • Key decisions, such as the Emancipation Proclamation, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Marshall Plan, and advancements in civil rights, showcase the application of ethical frameworks.

    • Presidential actions grounded in ethical reasoning correlate with the historical narrative of greatness in leadership.

Further Reading

  • Burnes, B. Harry S. Truman: His Life and Times, Kansas City Star Books, 2003.

  • Chadwick, B. The Two American Presidents: A Dual Biography of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, Carol Publishing Group, 1999.

  • Donald, D.H. Lincoln, Simon and Schuster, 1995.

  • Guelzo, A.C. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Simon and Schuster, 2004.

  • Hamby, A.L. Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman, OUP, 1995.

  • McCullough, D. Truman, Simon and Schuster, 1992.

Based on the ethical frameworks and case studies provided in your notes, here are several complex questions you can ask your Teaching Assistant to deepen the discussion:

  1. The Conflict of Universalism: Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative suggests that moral actions must be applicable as a universal law. How does Abraham Lincoln’s decision to issue a 'partial' Emancipation Proclamation (freeing slaves only in rebel states) hold up under Kantian scrutiny, given it was not a universal application of the principle of liberty?

  2. The Valuation of Life in Utilitarianism: When Harry S. Truman utilized a utilitarian framework to justify the atomic bomb, he weighed 500,000 to 1,000,000 potential Allied casualties against Japanese fatalities. How does a utilitarian leader ethically justify the 'calculation' of lives when the subjects belong to different political or national entities?

  3. Duty to Law vs. Duty to Humanity: Lincoln felt a 'Duty' to his constitutional oath but also a 'Duty' to the moral end of slavery. In a Kantian framework, when two duties conflict (e.g., a legal duty to a flawed document vs. a moral duty to human rights), which one takes precedence, and why?

  4. Motive vs. Outcome in the Marshall Plan: Kantian ethics asserts that the moral worth of an action is in the motive (duty), not the outcome. If the Marshall Plan was enacted partly to prevent the spread of Communism (a strategic outcome), does it lose its status as a 'Duty-based' ethical action in the eyes of a Kantian?

  5. The Subjectivity of Harm: Contemporary Utilitarianism shifted from 'pleasure/pain' to 'benefits/harms' to avoid subjectivity. However, how can a president objectively calculate 'net positive impact' when different stakeholders (e.g., domestic citizens vs. international communities) define 'harm' and 'benefit' in fundamentally different ways?