Ethics: Another Perspective

As always, it is interesting to read the posts of my classmates, many of whom have very different worldviews and some with whom I seemingly have more in common with.  I found it interesting that Tionne Bryant said "Hillary Clinton has the most firm ethical standards and  most relativistic and situational ethics."  I very much respect her as a presidential candidate, as a woman, and as a politician, however, I think this statement is interesting because it definitely reflects a different opinion on "situational ethics" than I have.  This is because I think having firm ethical standards is extremely honorable and important because it shows your ability to maintain and uphold strong convictions and values (very important in a leader, and something that for the most part I think Mrs. Clinton maintains.)  However, as I mentioned in my last post, I think situational ethics is something that needs to be treaded carefully and lightly, and one should only sacrifice their ethical and moral convictions in a situation of absolute necessity, otherwise you will lose respect and your subjects will not believe you stand on firm ground.  Campaign season, as I also said, is a time when the line of situational ethics is often toed, because of an absolute effort to gain followers before the title of "leader" is even won, and in that sense you can see it to some extent from every candidate.  So while I do agree with Mr. Bryant on her firm sense of ethical standards, I do not agree that she has the most situational ethics, but only because I think she is a stronger woman than that.  I believe she is capable of discerning when you need to put your convictions aside for the good of a nation, though.
While on the subject of campaign season, and the fuzzy sense of "ethics" that is brings out in our nations presidential hopefuls, it brings me to another statement from a classmate that I wholeheartedly agree with, from Caitlin Smallwood.  She spoke of Trump's sense of situational ethics and said " For the overwhelming situational ethics matched with absolute power and cruelty I thought of Trump who matches situational ethics to a T. In one moment, a promise of respect for the troops the next calling the troops idiots all for the sake of gaining more power which follows the ways of Machiavelli ."  Although I believe campaign season causes a lot of fuzzy ethical ground, Donald Trump does, in my eyes, take it to a new level.  Cruelty, scapegoating, fear-mongering, sexism, and racism...are all par for the course in a Trump campaign rally or speech.  I call this situational ethics because I believe that he knows that the demographic he mainly caters to feeds off of this type of statement, and is frustrated and really connects with the fact that he not only gives them a place to lay blame on the state of our nation, but also offers solutions (whether they are feasible or logical is another story.)  I highly doubt even Mr. Trump himself believes a lot of what he says to be sensible or feasible, but I know that he knows that the population he is speaking to really connects with the message he is throwing out there and so even if it isn't ethical (and is downright cruel) he does what he has to do for the "ends to justify the means" (which in his case is a hopeful presidential win.)