Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

The epitome of moral rot

Context

Cognitive biology: Although some people are uncomfortable with linking subjective, personal morality to politics, social science makes clear that moral reasoning cannot be completely avoided. Humans are inherently moral thinkers and actors. Humans perceive the world and think about it through a human lens. For better or worse, our perceptions and reasoning are usually heavily influenced by personal moral values. That influence tends to arise mostly or completely unconsciously before conscious reasoning is brought to bear. To a large extent, we are basically unaware of much of our moral reasoning and attendant behavior.

News reporting: Various sources report about Trump's pardon of the drug kingpin and Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández. Hernández was involved in the trafficking of hundreds of tons of illegal drugs into the US. US Senator Tim Kaine asserted that Hernández was aggressive and arrogant in his attitude, allegedly commenting that Hernández said he wanted to ‘shove the drugs right up the noses of the gringos by flooding the United States with cocaine’.

When asked why he pardoned Hernández, Trump gave these reasons:

“I was asked by Honduras, many of the people of Honduras. The people of Honduras really thought he was set up, and it was a terrible thing. They basically said he was a drug dealer because he was the president of the country. And they said it was a Biden administration set-up. And I looked at the facts and I agreed with them.” 

Trump provided no evidence of a setup. In his US trial, Hernández was convicted by a jury who carefully considered the evidence of criminal culpability. Hernández told the jury he was innocent and was set up. But based on available reporting, Hernández provided no verifiable evidence to the court that he was framed or set up. Despite his unsupported claims of innocence, the jury convicted him and then Trump pardoned him. The jury vindicated the rule of law in a fair trial based on evidence. But Trump reversed that and in doing so he denigrated the law and disrespected the jury on the basis of no tangible evidence.

Moral rot

As explained here before, when there is sufficient evidence of dishonesty and bad faith dealings by players and interests doing politics, it is rational for people who support democracy and the rule of law to distrust those players and interests.

Years ago, Trump reached a point where significant numbers of reasonable, fair-minded people could conclude that Trump cannot be trusted. He is not just an aggressive chronic liar[1], which is beyond rational dispute. His authoritarian behavior over the years made clear that his character is grounded in moral rot. Whatever his morality is, it does not include respect for either facts and honest rhetoric, or democracy and the rule of law.

Pro-democracy, pro-rule of law people acting and thinking in good will can rationally argue that Donald Trump is a profoundly morally rotted person. His moral rot manifests in various ways, e.g., inciting insurrection on 1/6/21, fornication with Stormy Daniels (and lying about it), running a fraudulent charity, defaming people, and being convicted of business fraud felonies.

Points to consider

Morality is almost always assessed from different points of view. It depends on who is doing the assessing. From his own point of view, is it more likely that Trump sees himself as a mostly honest player who is at least as moral and good as other politicians? Or does he understand who and what he really is, e.g., mendacious, corrupt, authoritarian, etc., but that's acceptable in his moral world?

Is Trump's pardon of Hernandez an example of moral rot regardless of what point of view it is assessed?

Footnote:

1. PolitiFact's assessment of Trump's lies was blunt: "American fact-checkers have never encountered a politician who shares Trump's disregard for factual accuracy". PolitiFact's assessment noted that Trump's fast-and-loose style with facts persisted from his 2011 promotion of crackpot birther conspiracy theories through his presidency and into his political activities as of Feb. 2024 when PolitiFact published its 1000th fact check of Trump.

r/RationalDemocracy - Evidence of moral rot
Evidence of moral rot

No comments:

Post a Comment