Loading...

An ambiguous "ought" in The New Yorker's "Why Trump’s Trials Should Be on TV." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title An ambiguous "ought" in The New Yorker's "Why Trump’s Trials Should Be on TV.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : An ambiguous "ought" in The New Yorker's "Why Trump’s Trials Should Be on TV."
link : An ambiguous "ought" in The New Yorker's "Why Trump’s Trials Should Be on TV."

An ambiguous "ought" in The New Yorker's "Why Trump’s Trials Should Be on TV."

This is an opinion column — subtitled "The conduct of the trials, their fairness, and their possibly damning verdicts will be at the center of the 2024 election. Transparency is crucial" — by Amy Davidson Sorkin.

I agree that the trials should be televised, as I wrote in "The ACLU sides with Trump: The gag order is unconstitutional" (October 26, 2023) and — quoting Trump's lawyers — "The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness. President Trump calls for sunlight" (November 11, 2023).

Here are the last few sentences of the column:

There is apprehension about what [Trump] might say, and what his supporters might then do if they heed him.... Yet to believe that allowing the country to watch as Trump takes the stand would be more of a threat to the Republic than it would be to his defense is to accept his own myths about himself. The evidence against Trump ought to stand up to scrutiny far better than he will. Everybody should see that. Trump isn’t camera-shy; prosecutors have no reason to be, either.

Now, I know very well which of 2 possible meanings of "ought" Sorkin intended.

I know from the context and I know from the clarity of Sorkin's antagonism toward Trump. "The evidence against Trump ought to stand up to scrutiny far better than he will" must be a statement of prediction: She believes it is likely that the evidence presented against Trump will look much better on camera than whatever Trump does.

But there is a second meaning to "ought," and I like it better as argument in favor of having cameras at Trump's trials. Prosecutors are bound by an ethical duty to have sufficient evidence to convict. Their evidence had better be sufficient and capable of meeting the high standard of proof. "The evidence against Trump ought to stand up to scrutiny far better" — it should stand up, it must stand up — because the prosecution has an ethical obligation. 

And yes, I did read the OED entry for "ought." The meaning Sorkin uses — "Expressing expectation of an occurrence or belief in its likelihood" — is the most recent definition of "ought," dating back to 1656. The oldest example of the use of "ought" in this manner is: "The Apogæum of the Sunne, or the Aphelium of the Earth ought to be about the 28th degree of Cancer. translation of T. Hobbes, Elements of Philosophy iv. xxvi. 329."

Loading...

This is an opinion column — subtitled "The conduct of the trials, their fairness, and their possibly damning verdicts will be at the center of the 2024 election. Transparency is crucial" — by Amy Davidson Sorkin.

I agree that the trials should be televised, as I wrote in "The ACLU sides with Trump: The gag order is unconstitutional" (October 26, 2023) and — quoting Trump's lawyers — "The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness. President Trump calls for sunlight" (November 11, 2023).

Here are the last few sentences of the column:

There is apprehension about what [Trump] might say, and what his supporters might then do if they heed him.... Yet to believe that allowing the country to watch as Trump takes the stand would be more of a threat to the Republic than it would be to his defense is to accept his own myths about himself. The evidence against Trump ought to stand up to scrutiny far better than he will. Everybody should see that. Trump isn’t camera-shy; prosecutors have no reason to be, either.

Now, I know very well which of 2 possible meanings of "ought" Sorkin intended.

I know from the context and I know from the clarity of Sorkin's antagonism toward Trump. "The evidence against Trump ought to stand up to scrutiny far better than he will" must be a statement of prediction: She believes it is likely that the evidence presented against Trump will look much better on camera than whatever Trump does.

But there is a second meaning to "ought," and I like it better as argument in favor of having cameras at Trump's trials. Prosecutors are bound by an ethical duty to have sufficient evidence to convict. Their evidence had better be sufficient and capable of meeting the high standard of proof. "The evidence against Trump ought to stand up to scrutiny far better" — it should stand up, it must stand up — because the prosecution has an ethical obligation. 

And yes, I did read the OED entry for "ought." The meaning Sorkin uses — "Expressing expectation of an occurrence or belief in its likelihood" — is the most recent definition of "ought," dating back to 1656. The oldest example of the use of "ought" in this manner is: "The Apogæum of the Sunne, or the Aphelium of the Earth ought to be about the 28th degree of Cancer. translation of T. Hobbes, Elements of Philosophy iv. xxvi. 329."

Thus articles An ambiguous "ought" in The New Yorker's "Why Trump’s Trials Should Be on TV."

that is all articles An ambiguous "ought" in The New Yorker's "Why Trump’s Trials Should Be on TV." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article An ambiguous "ought" in The New Yorker's "Why Trump’s Trials Should Be on TV." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2023/11/an-ambiguous-ought-in-new-yorkers-why.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: