In my previous article on "Kantian Categorical Imperative as Justification of Trump's Impeachment" (linked here), I focussed on how Trump's impeachment was ethically justified but a lot has happened since then.
Trump's impeachment in the House of Representatives is not the end of the story.
On the fifth of February 2020, Trump was formally acquitted of all of his charges in the United States Senate. As predicted, he was not convicted – all Democrats voted for conviction but all Republicans but one voted against conviction. The only surprising thing from the trial was the fact that one of the Republicans in the Senate voted against Trump: Senator Mitt Romney of Utah (the party's 2012 presidential nominee against Obama) sided with the Democrats and voted for Trump to be charged with the two aforementioned crimes. After five months of hearings and investigation, all efforts fell through and the US Senate acquitted Trump of all crimes that he had committed.
To put it simply, the US Senate acted freely when acquitting Trump. These are not my words, rather they are Aristotle's. I will now shift the focus of this article to the ethics of the Republicans' actions when voting against Trump's conviction in the Senate.
Aristotle would condemn the actions of the Republicans who voted against conviction as they were exercising their free will. Aristotle's theory on free will is similar to a Traditional Compatibilist's view on free will – we are free when we perform "voluntary" acts as we are not constrained by the elements of our human condition. If you perform "voluntary" acts, you are completely morally accountable as you are following your free will. However, we are not free nor morally accountable (to an extent) when we perform acts that are influenced by our human condition (Compulsion and Ignorance) as this leads to actions that are not reflective of our freedom. If one is to perform a "non-voluntary" act, they would be performing an act where, although you are less morally accountable due to you not exercising free will, you are performing an act that is due to ignorance and compulsion.
Aristotle would say that the Republicans who voted against impeachment were not acting in compulsion nor were they acting in ignorance. They exercised their free will and transcended their human condition to make a "purely" morally wrong choice. The Republicans found themselves in a "pure voluntary situation" as they chose a voluntary situation (the what, where, why of their situation) and a voluntary choice (they ultimately exercised free will to make a decision not affected by compulsion or ignorance). Aristotle deems actions that are "purely voluntary" as acts subject to the highest levels of moral criticism as one's free will is the driving force for these acts. These Republicans were supporting the unethical acts performed by Trump and they were under no external compulsion to do so. They acted in self-interest and exercised free will to support immoral actions. so, therefore, Aristotle would condemn the acts of all Republicans for voting against conviction but he would not criticise the acts of Mitt Romney.
Senator Mitt Romney is the only Republican who, I think, Aristotle would deem as not morally responsible for his actions. He acted involuntarily as he followed his compulsion, driven by his faith, and acted accordingly to his belief in God. "I take an oath before God as enormously consequential," Romney said, announcing his decision to convict Trump on 05/02/2020. "I have voted with him 80 percent of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside." Mitt Romney has been vilified by Republicans and Trump supporters but I believe that he was put into a situation where he could not exercise free will and had to follow his compulsion and his drive incited by belief in God to convict Trump. Aristotle would consider all the Republicans but Senator Romney to be morally incorrect as Romney did not exercise free will but rather followed the determined elements of his life.
However, please do note that I am not condemning Mitt Romney's actions. Free will is not necessarily a good thing and this notion is explained by Jean-Paul Sartre in his famous quote "we are condemned to be free". One may have free will but they are not necessarily using their free will for good causes. One not exercising free will may still make decisions that are perceived to be good – for example, a monk who has dedicated his life to following the ways of Buddha would not have free will under Aristotle's theory of freedom. This monk's actions would be due to compulsion as he would follow the way of life dictated by Buddha but would we ever classify his actions as "bad" or "immoral"? No. The monk is 'doing God's work', one may even say that he is "valiant" or "moral" for following the ways of God. This is a similar case to Mitt Romney's stand against Trump. Senator Romney had a compulsion from God and the Church to stand up for what is right, he acted without free will to vote for conviction as his beliefs determined his actions. Romney's faith gave him an acute sense of justice and injustice and it drove him to make a decision that one could perceive to be "moral".
It has now been determined that there were moral grounds for Trump's impeachment and the fact that he wasn't impeached was due to the moral wrongdoings of the Republicans. But what of the repercussions of Trump's impeachment? What of the ethics behind his firing of Gordon Sondland and Alexander Vindman?
Gordon Sondland was a key witness in the House Impeachment hearings of 2019 (along with Lt. Col. Vindman) and was involved in trying to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into Trump's rivals. His actions were key in the impeachment hearings as he was one of the strongest witnesses against Trump.
“There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House,” David Pressman, Colonel Vindman’s lawyer, said in a statement. “Lt. Col. Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful.” Lt Col. Vindman was removed from his position due to him "telling the truth", he testified as to what occurred on the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine and he stated that it was "improper" for Trump to coerce a foreign country into investigating his political opponents.
Both the actions of Gordon Sondland and Lt. Col. Vindman were crucial to the House Impeachment hearing being successfully against Trump so this shows the inherent reasons why they were removed from their positions. But is this really an ethical act? Was it right for Trump to do this? The obvious answer is no, he is in the wrong for doing what we did but I will answer, in a condensed manner, the philosophical quandary which arises from this issue. Kant would say that Trump violated the Law of Universalisability and the law of treating people as an end. Trump did unto others that he wouldn't do unto himself which violates Kant's idea of how we should only do things to others that we would want to be done to ourselves. In addition to this, Trump used Gordon Sondland and Lt. Col. Vindman as means to an end rather than an end as he did not fire them for legal, ethical and objective reasoning. Trump fired the two men due to him pursuing self-interest, he wanted to rid the White House of two men who did not support him and this shows Trump's violation of Kant's idea of using people as an end rather than using people for our own selfish needs.
In conclusion, what Trump did with his coercion of President Zelensky of Ukraine along with his obstruction of Congress was morally wrong due to his violations of Kant's Categorical Imperative. The process of his impeachment trial that occurred in Senate would be deemed morally wrong by Aristotle as the Republicans were acting in accordance with their free will but made morally wrong decisions. And finally, the aftermath of Trump's impeachment acquittal was morally wrong as Trump, once again, violated Kant's Categorical Imperative.
Sources:
https://www.businessinsider.sg/how-trump-could-be-impeached-convicted-but-win-reelection-2020-2019-11/?r=US&IR=T
https://www.businessinsider.sg/list-of-impeached-us-presidents-2019-12/?r=US&IR=T
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/impeachment-report-trump-obstruct/602938/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/26/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-senate
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/showtime-orders-more-episodes-stephen-195705593.html
https://www.dreamstime.com/immanuel-kant-two-stickers-vector-illustration-emotional-facepalm-expression-disbelief-shame-exasperation-reverie-muse-image163169117
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/romney-vilified-d-c-vote-convict-trump-finds-respect-support-n1133106
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/politics/trump-acquitted-impeachment.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/politics/alexander-vindman-gordon-sondland-fired.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/politics/alexander-vindman-impeachment-testimony.html
Rauhut, N. C. (2010). Ultimate Questions: Thinking about Philosophy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson College Division.