Charlie Kirk has new @Newsweek editorial out about #coronavirus. The takeaway: Kirk doesn't want to criticize Trump so he goes "ethics is complicated." And, Kirk digs shallow in Philosophy 101 to keep himself from angering the cult leader. A thread 1/ newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-e…
Kirk leans hard into #Gaslighting Trump started this week with a clarion call: "It is impossible to dispute the math that taking extreme action now will lessen the spread of the virus." But he then turns that clarity into a mushy sitting on the fence, aka "complicated." 2/
In order to frame himself an ethicist keen on complex thought, Kirk builds a false premise: "In our current moment, our leaders are being forced to choose between two terrible decisions—either destroy the economy and save lives, or save the economy and lose lives..." Except... 3/
No one - from economic leaders to even Trump - has made this claim. Yet Kirk then says "I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, but both the human and financial costs are so great...." blah, blah. Key here: Kirk lays out no policies. 4/
It's clear unless Trump backs any idea, no GOP sycophant should back it and/or propose anything at all. And so Kirk muddies the water with - wait for it - academic-ish sentences like "the ethical calculation is a bit more complex than that." Who does he rely on for this? 5/
The "utilitarian" John Stuart Mill. By contrasting him to two theorists with latter's "scientific approach to ethics" and "simple addition and subtraction," Kirk can open space to be clear as mud. But of course that is far from a good summary of JS Mill 6/
Sure, utilitarianism is an ethical system - and ethics is complicated. But that does not discourage choice (aka policy). And with Kirk's shallow use of the "classical liberal" Mill, Kirk omits several key facts about that theory. For one... 7/
According to Stanford (the college Kirk attacked on Twitter this week!) guide to philosophy, the source Kirk links to in his editorial: Under utilitarianism, "we can be said to have certain rights, then — but those rights are underwritten by utility. 8/ plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilit…
If Kirk wants to use a 'messy' utilitarianism to not made a choice and so lead in our #CoronavirusOutbreak, fine, but then he has to also admit Mill's ideas would erase all "God-given" rights especially those Kirk supports like the right to guns. 9/
The other bit of irony in Kirk using Mill is Mill's ideas are still widely taught in academia - the institution Kirk so regularly attacks. Mill is even taught by professors on Turning Point USA's watchlist 10/ washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sh…
Kirk is no stranger to Mill. He uses Mill's thinking as citation for Kirk's "free speech" emphasis. In his book Campus Battlefield, Kirk offers Mill one line of praise: 11/ books.google.com/books?id=PkJqD…
But that praise is also ironic as many religious people see Mill as an "intolerant" liberal (albeit a "classical" one) - the kind of intolerant liberal (albeit different modern use of term) that Kirk hates. 12/ thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/06/19529/
For Kirk the Christian, do ideas of Mill, the secularist, align w/ Christianity? It is complicated. But Christian criticism of utilitarianism is clear: its moral system is not divine revelation. Focused on results, not rules, it demolished rules. 13/ probe.org/utilitarianism…
In the end, Kirk seems both against government intervention in the economy but also saving lives over saving the economy. His ethics seem muddied. Perhaps getting out of the Trump cult would help him clear up his ideals. /end
PS And as always all my threads on Charlie Kirk can be found here: link.medium.com/kxRtBfMZ04
PSS in tweet Number 6 it should read “former” not latter - Mill was against the “science” method of those other two
One more clarification: Kirk does seem against intervention but also is interested in saving lives. How saving the economy works in his ethics is unclear.
