The Miscellany News

I believe Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr. has said reprehensible things. These include antisemitism, anti-Asian racism and ableism. I would go so far as to say that RFK Jr. is morally liable for the negative consequences of his words and actions. This may be an interesting thought to pursue, but instead, I would like to question whether his wife, Cheryl Hines—an Emmy-nominated actress—is morally liable for the negative consequences by association. This is merely a high-profile example that I chose because it is high-profile, but the principles that may be established are wide-reaching. Ethical principles must be consistent. Your instinct might be to answer affirmatively to the question of Hine’s moral liability out of an intense—though I would argue warranted—dislike of RFK Jr. In doing so, however, you might make a world where spouses are responsible for cleaning up each other’s moral messes.

First, it is important to establish the premises of this thought experiment. My assumptions are: A person can be held morally liable for their words if they cause harm, RFK Jr. is morally liable due to his statements and actions and Hines has not cosigned his statements.

How I conclude will depend on what version of moral ethics I adopt. Let me begin with a consequentialist viewpoint, held by notable philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. This viewpoint argues that actions should be judged based on their consequences—usually articulated as the amount of pleasure or pain they create. 

I want to specifically draw attention to the idea of negative responsibility. This caveat, held by some consequentialist moral philosophers, holds that in addition to being morally liable for the consequences of your actions, you are morally liable for the consequences of not acting. Under this framework, the only way we can conclude that Hines is morally liable for the consequences of Kennedy’s words and actions is if we have a reasonable belief that she could have done something. This could be denouncing RFK Jr.’s remarks in a way to mitigate harm. I do not think we can make this claim. There is no reason to suggest that Hines denouncing RFK Jr.’s statements would change anyone’s thoughts or actions. Therefore, under a consequentialist model, it does not make sense to suggest that she is morally liable by association.

Virtue ethics, in contrast, presents another interesting way to look at this thought experiment, with notable systems of virtue ethics having been developed by Aristotle and Confucius. Under a virtue ethics framework, what matters is character and the exhibition of certain traits. There is a proverb that relates to virtue ethics: “You are the company you keep.” By this logic and RFK Jr.’s moral liability, Hines’ marriage to him intrinsically taints her character. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I do think that associating with someone who has said or done morally reprehensible things—while not denouncing it—does reflect negatively on your own character. On the other hand, I find it worrisome that one’s character can be tainted completely independent of another’s actions. 

However, one could argue that the tainting of one’s character is caused by their failure to speak up. Failure to speak up is attributable only to the actions of oneself,unless coercion is involved. I think the merit of virtue ethics in determining moral liability depends on the nature of said association. What if society agreed that—out of unconditional support—not voicing your objections to your partner’s behavior is a virtue? Adopting that logic would mean Hines’ decision to remain by RFK Jr.’s side was actually virtuous. We should rigorously question these arguments. We must then remember that the principles we establish go far beyond Hines and RFK Jr., applying to situations that are not as infuriating. Any ethical principle we establish must be universal. I find it very likely that in most relationships, there are times when one partner does not like something the other partner said. So, while the situation may be different, how about the principle?

Lastly, I want to briefly introduce the third major realm of moral theory: deontological ethics. This field of thought is most notably represented by Immanuel Kant. This framework judges the morality of an action based on whether it adheres to a set of rules or duties rather than on the consequences of the action. Similarly, with virtue ethics—in the context of the Cheryl Hines question—it would be her active choice to support RFK Jr., rather than the existence of their relationship, that would determine her moral liability.

Overall, it is fair to hold Hines morally liable for the consequences of her inaction. Her relationship with RFK Jr. carries moral weight and negatively affects perceptions of her character. However, without evidence that she cosigned RFK Jr.’s statements, she should not be held morally liable by association for his statements. They are separate individuals, so we should not make a world where spouses are expected to clean up each other’s moral messes. Now, to answer my original question: Relationships can carry moral weight, but those in the relationship are not intrinsically morally implicated by the actions of those they are in the relationship with.