By Sophia Ludtke ’20, Commentary Editor 

*This article, along with an article by Roman Wright ‘19, Commentary Writer, was inspired by an IB Philosophy assignment. The assignment was to analyze the recent increase in hate crimes in the US through a philosophical lens.

Before conflict, fueled by violent rhetoric, had normalized the killing of individual civilians, the deadliest genocide in history was sparked by one critical, but easily overlooked, influence: the power of words.

Research has shown that the radio was in fact one of the key factors that contributed to the spread of Adolf Hitler’s views during WW2, similar to the role radio played in contributing to the spread of Tutsi hatred during the Rwandan Genocide. The radio proved to be a particularly powerful weapon during both of the tragedies because the technology allowed hateful and provoking words to reach a greater audience.   

Indeed, it was in areas of Germany where anti-Semitic sentiment was already high that the radio proved to be the most powerful for the Nazis. However, it was through the radio broadcast of Hitler’s words that anti-Semitism became legitimized and even normalized, transforming anti-Semitism from a prejudice to grounds for the extermination of an entire population.

While it was action, not just words, that ultimately caused tragedies such as the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide, words served as the initial catalyst for this action, giving everyday citizens license to murder their innocent neighbors.

Today, as the institutional memory of both World Wars is eroding as generations become further removed from the history of the wars, hateful rhetoric – much of it centered around ethnic tension – is rapidly becoming more commonplace.

The anti-European Union, anti-immigrant and arguably anti-Semitic and racist words of far-right French politician, Marine Le Pen, failed to secure her a victory in the 2017 French presidential elections. However, the divisive and controversial language of both recently-elected Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, and our own U.S. president, Donald Trump, did not deter the general population from electing these two men to lead their respective countries.

With the recent increase in hate crimes in the U.S. being linked to President Trump’s hateful and violent rhetoric, perhaps the ethical stances of two philosophers can shed light on this connection, and, in turn, on the morality of Trump’s actions.

A Philosophical Perspective

Descartes claims that the best defense against wrongdoing is refraining from action altogether when a clear perception of what is “true” or “good” is lacked. Yet, such reasoning would leave an individual paralyzed by an inability to act since it is quite frequent that what is “true” or “good” is not clearly perceived. Can it possibly be plausible for all action to be suspended the instant something cannot be perceived clearly?

This question is particularly pertinent to the position of a President–someone whose job demands constant action and leaves little room for the suspension of action altogether. According to Descartes’ stance on ethics (as suggested by his stance on the will and the intellect), if suspension of action is impossible (like for individuals such as the President), then a certain degree of moral wrongdoing is inevitable.

Yet, to deem divisive and potentially hate crime-inciting language “inevitable” (since a clear perception of what was right was necessarily lacking, and since circumstances prevented suspension of action) essentially frees an individual, such as President Trump, from responsibility for his actions.

John Stuart Mill on the other hand, whose stance on ethics is more explicit and direct, would likely view Trump’s violence-inciting actions differently. According to John Stuart Mill, the motivation to obey the principle of utilitarianism (or the idea of maximizing the good for the maximum number of people) comes from two sources: internal and external sanctions.

Within John Stuart Mill’s framework, the President possesses a disproportionate ability to affect the internal and external “sanctions” (or the motivating factors that encourage individuals to follow utilitarianism moral rules) placed on American citizens, thus affecting the country’s motivation to obey the principle of utilitarianism, or behave morally (according to John Stuart Mill’s definition of morality).

External sanctions can only continue to incentivize individuals to obey utilitarianism if the general population (those responsible for the external “sanctioning”) continues to value moral actions in accordance with the principle of utilitarianism. However, when a president sets a poor moral standard (using divisive, threatening, or even bullying language), then external sanctions may begin to erode. With these lower moral standards, a hate crime may no longer seem beyond the realm of normalcy – and without external sanctions to push back on this poor behavior (since conceivably the general population has also begun to adopt these lower moral standards), little motivation will remain for individuals to obey the principle of utilitarianism.

Indeed, internal sanctions, or the feeling of guilt one might experience after behaving immorally, play an important role as well. However, especially for those suffering from a mental illness, such internal sanctions may not prove to be as effective in regulating behavior. While the mental state of an individual committing a hate crime may be outside of the president’s control, when the president fails to even call out such acts of violence, clearly labelling them as anomalies and reflective of a nation-wide lowered moral standard, then these hate crimes become normalized.

Newark Academy’s Response

Upper School Principal DrD made an announcement in morning meeting recently explaining how, regardless of how frequent shootings or other hate crimes may become, we must continue to recognize these tragedies as anomalies, rather than just accepting them as a now routine occurrence. This type of action in which these hate crimes are called out as the exceptions, rather than just dismissed as everyday occurrences, should be happening on the national level. It is only by recognizing what is outside a moral standard of conduct that the President can ensure that external sanctions don’t erode.

Descartes, at the beginning of his career, took a very individual-centric approach to ethics, focusing on the will and intellect of the individual without as much regard for the consequences the actions of each individual may have on a greater community. However, later in his career, as his ethical beliefs began to evolve, his perspective changed slightly. As he began to put more emphasis on the impact an individual’s action may have on the greater world he said:

Even though each of us is a person separate from others and, by consequence, with interests that are in some manner distinct from those of the rest of the world, one must, all the same, think that one does not know to subsist alone and that one is, in effect, one part of the universe and, more particularly even, one part of this earth, one part of this state, and this society, and this family, to which one is joined by his home, by his oath, and by his birth.

Perhaps, President Trump, along with all of us everyday citizens, should reflect on this statement and think deeply about how our actions not only affect us as individuals but