bambamramfan
Consequentialism is too hard

This Freddie article panicking about Paul Ryan in a post-Trump world is part of why I consider consequentialism such a poor ethical guide post.

He worries that if we focus on opposing Trump, and Trump is impeached or obstructed or just all around foil and discredited, it will open up a lot of space for other conservatives to be seen as “acceptable” and “moderate.” “Oh, you only want to gut the welfare state, you don’t want to stop green card holders from entering the US because they’re brown? Well that’s not so bad.”

History has provided plenty of examples of that.

The other possibility is that if Trump is discredited as a massive joke, everything even remotely related to him is going to look bad, and left-liberals will get a surprisingly free hand to implement their agenda while accusing anyone who isn’t on board with them of being a Trumpkin.

History has provided plenty examples of that.

Not to mention the possibility that attempts to defeat Trump will all fail and we are wasting our breath talking about Paul Ryan.

And the thing is, each of these seem equally plausible to me. I feel I have no way to determine what the political order of a post-Trump world will look like. I don’t know if deBoer is just being small-minded, or this is the actual threat to watch out for.

mitigatedchaos

Consequentialism is true, but of limited usefulness, and not trustworthy in just anyone’s hands. Rights are not true, but are great for resolving situations.