Hi DeeDrea,

Best I can tell, your argument is something like the following:

—

i. If x is a candidate known to not treat all humans as equals and there are other viable candidates who do then

(a) there can be no overriding reasons for supporting x

and

(b) anyone who votes for x believes that their own personal gain is more important than treating humans as equals.

ii. Trump was known to not treat all humans as equals.

iii. There were other viable candidates who treated all humans as equals.

Conclusion: There can be no overriding reasons for supporting Trump and anyone who voted for him believes that their own personal gain is more important than treating humans as equals.

—

You take the following axiom as support for i(a): Respect for humans as equals ought to be our highest priority when considering candidates.

I apologize if I have missed or misconstrued anything in your original comment. Please correct me if I have.

But assuming this accurately captures your argument, allow me to explain why many wouldn’t find it convincing.

Let’s start with the third premise. In the general election, who were the other viable candidates that treated all humans as equals? The only other viable candidate was Hillary Clinton. But for anyone convinced of the pro-life position, the rights of the unborn are human rights. So before you can convince them that iii is true, you’ll need to wade into the very controversial issue of abortion.

In the primaries, there appeared to be many viable candidates besides Donald Trump. I agree with that and, thus, I am less sympathetic to those who supported Trump during the primaries. But not everyone was convinced. Many believed even during the primaries that Trump was the only one who could win in the general. While I don’t think the arguments for that position are convincing, I do think it enters into more murky territory, so I’m willing to be less condemnatory.

Next, we can consider something that effects all the premises: treating all humans as equals. The idea is more controversial than it appears at first glance. The abortion issue already makes that clear, but so do other issues like gay marriage or transgender issues. In order to treat all humans as equals do I have to personally affirm that same-sex marriage is legitimate or use a person’s preferred pronoun? Or can I treat all humans as equals so long as I respect the relevant laws regarding things like same-sex marriage, even if I personally disagree?

The idea of “human equality” can be so broad as to include things like universal healthcare or a universal guaranteed income. It can be construed in a maximizing way: whatever politician promises the most government action to achieve a = b becomes the only morally acceptable candidate. There can be no rational reasons for failing to support that candidate and anyone who does so must be motivated by animus.

Or we could build an argument that telling a sexist joke about women dehumanizes women and, thereby, fails to treat women as equals. So if a candidate has ever told a sexist joke then there can be no rational basis for supporting that candidate and anyone who does so is motivated by animus against women.

This maximizing tendency is polarizing and erodes the ability of competing moral visions to coexist. Furthermore, on the maximalist view of human equality, it’s far from obvious that, say, telling a sexist joke should override all other concerns about the candidate (e.g., foreign policy). We should, rather, have a more minimalist concept of a politician’s — or government’s — responsibilities when it comes to preserving or achieving human equality. This should be clearly defined and avoid utopianism. (Perhaps you’ll disagree, but it could hardly be argued that my disagreement could only be motivated by irrationality or personal gain.)

Finally, I want to address i(b). Given what I’ve said above, it should be obvious that one can have other reasons for voting for Trump besides personal gain. Many voted for Trump because they thought he would protect certain liberties that benefited all Americans, not just themselves.