Ethicist Jack Marshall is no fan of Hillary Clinton.
I don’t mind him holding her to the same standard as Trump, in fact he should, but he went out of the way detouring down the bias road in this piece calling her “pathetic” 16 times.
The Word For The Notes On Hillary Clinton’s FBI Interview—And Everything Related To It—Is “Pathetic” Sept. 3, 2016
Here’s a sample of his over-the-top writing.
- Forty times Clinton said that she couldn’t recall critical events.
7. This, as much as it is a terrible reflection on Clinton, the State Department and the F.B.I., is more evidence of the unconscionable incompetent and miserable leadership of Barack Obama. His Secretary of State, giving her the benefit of the doubt, was an incompetent, blithering fool. His State Department was technologically inept and reckless, to a dangerous degree. Did he know? Did he check? Did he care? Pathetic!
8. Hillary’s corrupted supporters and most of the news media have been cheering on this woman, in part on based on the claim that she is uniquely qualified for the Presidency by experience.
Yesterday he wrote: How Can You Tell If Hillary Clinton Is Lying? Her Lips Are Moving…
Classy and professional title….
Just a few minutes ago Marshall posted this with the professional sounding title of:
Presenting Three New Rationalizations: “Narcissist Ethics,” “The Dead Horse-Beater’s Dodge,” And “The Doomsday License”
Aha, I thought, and lesson in ethics from a professional…. I was sure wrong.
He was making sense until this:
Rationalization 8, The Trivial Trap or “No harm no foul!”, relies on#3. Consequentialism, or “It Worked Out for the Best” for its dubious logic, but is less demanding. #3 posits that unethical conduct that ends up having beneficial or desirable results has been purged of its unethical nature. #8 argues for an even more lenient standard, holding that as long as the unethical conduct—usually a lie—has no negative effects, it can’t be wrong. The Dead Horse-Beater’s Dodge, carries things even further with the theory that as long as a situation can’t be made worse by wrongful conduct, the conduct itself can’t be wrongful. The most famous invocation of #8A of recent vintage is Hillary Clinton’s exasperated question during the Benghazi hearings, “At this point, what difference does it make?” Her argument: a lack of candor now about the fatal events in Benghazi can’t bring back the dead, so why harp on it?
In ethics, wrongful conduct is usually identifiable by its nature and intent. “This can’t make things any worse” is an assumption that individuals seldom can make with guaranteed accuracy, and it usually presumes consent from the supposedly bottom-lying individual or organization that the unethical act is done to. Get the informed consent, 8A devotees, and then we’ll talk.
Sounds pretty good, except he removed the supposedly damning comment from greater context from the Benghazi hearing “At this point, what difference does it make?” Adding insult to injury, he opines that she said this in an exasperated manner. Even if he watched the hearing, it’s still his impression.
Here’s the context. See what you think.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WISC): No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
There is certainly a place for a professional ethicist to offer opinions about politics and politicians. However I think it behoves him to eschew snarky comments.