What Is The Right Thing To Do?

A fundamental ethical question concerns how to evaluate decisions about doing the right thing, particularly when the issue is complex. Clearly right and wrong are rooted in commonly held values. Obeying the handed-down law is essential in any society. Yahweh did not offer ancient Israel ten suggestions. For orthodox Muslims, Sharia law is not negotiable. For Americans, the Constitution and every level of government flowing from it is rock-solid. But then, one must first accept the particular law’s authority. For most Americans Sharia law has no legal authority.

But there is another way to determine what is the right thing to do. It is to evaluate the results. It is the end product flowing from any decision that must also be considered. If I am rushing an accident victim to the hospital and the speed limit is 35, perhaps I must violate that legal restriction for a larger good.

Consider the dilemma currently facing the Democrats: shall we impeach the President, or shall we hold off? If the police have evidence that I broke into a house and stole the jewelry, they are obligated to arrest me. If members of the House of Representatives believe the findings of the Mueller report offer sufficient evidence to charge President Trump with “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is it not their obligation to seek his impeachment? The only given reason Mueller did not bring criminal charges flows from the Constitution’s generally agreed upon prohibition of indicting a sitting President. That alternative resides with a Congress that was all but invited to move toward impeachment. With the Mueller evidence, and with the latest Ukrainian episode, certainly the House has a Constitutional duty to proceed. If following the law is the only standard, why should these sworn officials hesitate?

But hold on. What about the other standard for right action, the results? No matter what evidence has been produced and what the House legitimately has the obligation to do, what would be the result? The Senate as it is currently constituted would probably not convict, and the President would be catapulted into the election as an innocent winner. So despite evidence moving toward impeachment, the right decision based on the law, might be a questional decision when the likely results are considered.

But wait. There is an additional factor to be considered: timing. When is an action appropriate and when is it ill-advised? In this case if the legitimate result is to remove the President from office, instead of a losing a current impeachment effort, might it be more likely to defeat him in the election? He would then be gone from office, and what is more, he then could then be indicted on criminal charges. Doing the right thing, considering both obedience the law and weighing the results, is not so simple.

Given the alternatives we can certainly agree with the House members who believe that they must follow their constitutional mandate and bring articles of impeachment.

Now that speaker Pelosi has agreed that an impeachment inquiry should now take place, the pendulum has swung in that direction. While an inquiry is appropriate it is only one step before impeachment becomes a trial in the House. And that is a very different process. The best advice might be for the House to proceed carefully step by step being certain that each step is on sturdy ground.

This inquiry should not bring Congress to a halt. More is at stake than what might happen to President Trump. Critical action concerning the destruction of the environment, the crisis on the border, the threat of war with Iran, the disastrously unfair division of the nation’s resources, medical insurance for every American—and much more are all at risk. To spend the next year in a losing debate about impeachment strikes me as a faulty action. Putting all our effort and our resources into next year’s election strikes me as the right action.

So how do you know what is the right thing to do? While in this case there is no simplistic answer, what is right and what is at stake cannot be ignored in the name of ideological purity. Here the right thing to do must rest on 1-the legal authority. 2-the probable results. 3-the proper time.