In a recent interview, President Obama talks to an interviewer about how he has use his voice to try to move things forward to a more ethical and moral outcome. The article than goes on to debate what can be consider ethical and moral. The article claims that obama hasn’t been the most moral president.
So my question is Obama keeping up with Kant theory of consistency and fairness?
The idea of consistency and fairness follows two guidelines in Kant explanation.
1. What if everyone did it?
2. How would you like that if that was done too you.
For example, the article ask was Obama being moral when he allows Muslim refugee from Syria into the country, however doesn’t permit Syrian christian to enter. How about the President being a active pro abortion president doesn’t that conflict with his views of Christianity. Lastly, How the president was against same sex marriage now he for it.
So I ask the question again does Obama match up with Kant theory of consistency and fairness. In my opinion I don’t believe so. Obama Just like most politician is a hypocrite. Which doesn’t keep up with the idea of consistency. Imagine a world where everybody was hypocrites you couldn’t trust anybody because people wouldn’t be consistent with their words. If I was constantly getting my leg pull by somebody that wouldn’t make trust the person especially in a position of power like the President. I feel that Obama morals are only beneficial when they benefit him.