Thread by @BikoMandelaGray

Thread:

The Derek Chauvin trial is why virtue ethics don’t work for black people (if you can’t tell, I’m working on a project on ethics).

Let me break this down (and I’m still working my way through this, so feel free to share thoughts).

The prosecution’s closing argument seemed to lodge chauvin’s violence in his character, i.e, he’s not a virtuous man. He’s guilty bc HE—not his job—is evil.

But this isn’t quite right. Stay w/ me.

according to Aristotle, ethics is about cultivating a virtuous life—by which he means “living and acting well.”

What does it mean to live and act well? It seems to mean that one lives according to those things that are agreed upon as virtuous.

And who determines which things are virtuous? Politicians. The source—or adjudication —of virtue is the law/politics. Aristotle assumes that politicians do their work in order to “make citizens good and obedient to the laws.” (NE 1.13)

the police serve this function; they execute the laws meant to make “citizens good.”

From this perspective, then, the prosecution’s argument is flawed. Bc chauvin did what he did IN THE LINE OF A DUTY prescribed by legislators who allegedly work for public good.

This is precisely the defense’s argument: Chauvin was doing his job—a job that is deemed virtuous...

Even by the prosecution.

the prosecution has manufactured a distinction between Chauvin the man and Chauvin the cop in order to convict him, but it doesn’t hold.

Why? Bc Chauvin would not have had the occasion to kill in this situation if he WEREN’T a cop.

Chauvin was called to the scene Bc Floyd “broke” a law. Floyd disrupted a public good; Chauvin showed up to preserve that good.

the defense is therefore claiming that Floyd deserved whatever came to him bc he violated the law.

The prosecution can’t break through this; they can’t claim that Chauvin broke the law AS A COP.

So they’ve cooked up a distinction that cannot legally—and “legally” is key here—hold. they’ve introduced a standard of virtue that isn’t present w/in the logic of the law.

Why does any of this matter? Bc there is no LEGAL ground upon which to convict or hold Chauvin accountable.

the world holds that cops are virtuous beings, so there is no way for Chauvin to be an “evil” man bc he was doing what the law tolerated—if not outright required.

It turns out, then that—at least according to virtue ethics—the only “evil” person in this situation is Floyd. virtue ethics is not the place—at least in this case—to tend to black life in an antiblack world.

Chauvin Coolly and calmly killed Floyd bc he could—bc he was sanctioned to do so, bc the world agreed that his identity was virtuous. The prosecution wants to make a distinction that can’t hold in this world, bc they also agree that cops are virtuous.

This is why #PICabolition is crucial. This case—as do all the others—exposes how the ethical frames that uphold this system cannot tend to blackness. It is legally and ethically bound to kill blackness in light of its adherence to the virtue-ethical premise that...

Cops, as executors of laws, are always—ALWAYS—virtuous. If Chauvin is acquitted, it is bc he’s supposed to be—the world demands it. If he’s convicted, it exposes the artificial and fragile nature of the law, providing an opening for rupture.

Neither outcome shakes the premise that cops are good bc they are executors of the law; Both possibilities expose the antiblackness of police and the nation.

As such, both outcomes expose a profound necessity for abolition.

The only way for black people to have some kind of solve in this world, then, is to abolish the police and the entire prison industrial complex. The country is happy to kill black people. That much is clear. And they do so bc they uphold a premise that assumes the virtue of cops.

The more I study ethics, the more I recognize how profoundly necessary abolition is as a stance.

If one wants to fight against antiblackness, they must take an abolitionist stance. Otherwise, one is claiming that it is ethical to kill blk ppl.

I hope this helped clarify something for someone. If it did, that’s fantastic. If not, that’s fine too. I’ll just go back to doing my little thing in my corner of the world.