Biden at the pearly gates

And at the bar of history

Did Joe Biden do the right thing by withdrawing from the current presidential race?

The answer depends on who's asking and what that person means by right. Democrats view the decision differently than Republicans. But for the moment let's take the perspective of the Democrats, who want the Democratic candidate to win in November. From this view, did Biden make the right choice?

Now we turn to what “right" means. Since Biden made his announcement, numerous Democrats have praised his selflessness and his devotion to democracy. These are admirable traits, and to the extent they motivated Biden's decision, he deserves the praise he has received. 

He deserves it, that is, if the point of being president is to display virtue. Other things being equal, we should want our presidents to be good people. When they meet St. Peter at the gates of heaven, we hope they pass muster and sail through.

But things aren't equal with presidents. My actions affect those close to me and not many more. The actions of a president affect many millions of people. It's not unreasonable to be less interested in the virtue of presidents than in the effects of their actions.

Ethics come in multiple flavors. A common dichotomy distinguishes deontological ethics from consequentialist ethics. The former measure actions according to whether they comport with a pre-existing standard of morality. The deontologist says that lying is wrong, and therefore that lying is unethical behavior. You shouldn't do it.

The consequentialist is less concerned with actions per se than with the results of those actions. Lying is neither right nor wrong. If it leads to a better outcome in a particular instance than telling the truth, then it’s ethical. 

Of course one can argue about what constitutes a better outcome. But if a lie can save a life, in most cases that would count as better.

The problem with consequentialism is that it's usually impossible to tell, at the moment of decision, what the outcome will be. And that cloud of ignorance can be used to rationalize all sorts of unseemly actions.

So if I were St. Peter, I'd stick to deontology. Did the candidate for admission to heaven do the right thing by his or her own standards? Was the heart in the right place?

But I'm not St. Peter. I'm a historian. And as a historian I can't help being a consequentialist. I know how things turned out. And knowing that, I can't help using it as a basis for judging the actions of presidents and other decision makers. 

Still, I adjust my consequentialism to individual cases. As a historian I don't care who wins the 2024 election. But next year or next decade, as I’m reflecting on Joe Biden's presidency, I’ll pay close attention to the election’s outcome. If Kamala Harris wins, I'll give him high marks for a shrewd decision. 

I won't bother peering into his soul. I won't ask if he did it out of selflessness, or out of self-regard for his historical legacy. Maybe he concluded that the Democrats were going down to defeat and he'd prefer Harris take the blame—and got it wrong.

St. Peter’s boss said, “By their fruits you will know them.” Jesus was talking about prophets, particularly false ones. Yet coming from one who specialized in souls, this sounds strikingly consequentialist. Does it apply to presidents?