Switching Moral Compasses
Trump is systemically replacing Biden’s morals with his own — adversely impacting the disaster readiness of Americans now.
The idea that one politician can promote that their morals are better than another’s is certainly a political gambit. And if they win, they can enforce their version of moral mandates. What alarms those of us in Emergency Management, is how quickly the cuts and purges of U.S. Federal information and guidance needed by the whole of the U.S. public, were made. Examples include disaster preparedness material and policies for people with disabilities, Federal support for vulnerable populations, and people who communicate in other languages other than English, including American Sign Language.
And how one group’s moral compass has actually led them to ethical dilemmas and risk to Americans. To paraphrase Sting from 1981, when one subjugates the meek, it is the rhetoric of failure.
Others have made important arguments and rallied against the systemic purging of protections for vulnerable populations; our focus is on the constant need to support disaster readiness of everyone, regardless of their ‘fill-in-the-blank’ status or label. And we use that term not to diminish the individuality of people — all people — but rather to:
First, pointedly note this is a growing population being attacked by the Trump Administration. As we saw from the start of the morality play we are now a part of since January 20, 2025, was transgender people. Then came LGBTQ+ folks and others who could be categorized as being supported through any ‘woke’ morals of the prior Biden Administration. From an emergency management perspective, the most devastating example of this was FEMA-produced guidance called “Planning Considerations: Putting People First” which was finalized in late December 2024, posted in early January 2025 and promptly purged after the new Administration started.
Second, recognize that accessibility was swept up next. Whether deliberately ordered to be removed, or as part of an overreach in interpretation of Executive Orders, critical life safety material for people with disabilities and access/functional needs have been purged from U.S. Federal websites, as well. Many of these actions are most likely contrary to existing U.S. Federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Finally, note that our states, local governments, territories, and sovereign tribal nations (SLTTs) as a whole are being caught off-guard with these sweeping changes. We do not think that all of the SLTTs — even those who may share the same moral compass as the Trump Administration — realized how sweeping and systemically these cuts in Federal programs, access to existing research data, and web-based material would impact them directly. And how stupefied U.S. Federal officials are now in all of the executive branch departments and agencies. Nations cannot operate this way, as it relates to their own Emergency Management and Homeland Security. It is unethical in both the short and long terms.
We found this great journal article from 1965, which explains the difference between being guided by a moral compass and an ethical one:
To make my point, I must first distinguish between two types of morality that differ in form, in psychological function and in their place in social evolution. The discussants use the term “morality”, “morals” and “ethics” more or less interchangeably; But I propose here to use “morals” and “ethics” to define the opposite ends of a continuum of morality that runs from specific to general, and from reflexive to reflective and from primitive to civilized. By “morals” I will mean the socially learned, largely unconscious, relatively specific and apparently self-evident rules of right conduct in any community. When an individual violates his moral code he feels guilt, the pangs of conscience experienced as part of the “not-me,” as an alien force that acts upon the conscious and experiencing self. Moral codes tend to be specific in situational: they tell us how to behave ourselves (or now not to behave ourselves) in defined kinds of situations. When a moral man acts morally, he often acts automatically and unreflectively: the power of his moral sense is shown by his imperviousness to temptation.
By “ethics,” however, I want to refer to the individual’s thought-out reflective and generalized sense of good and evil, the desirable and the undesirable, as integrated into his sense of himself and his view of the world. When an ethical man violates his own ethic, he feels not guilt but a sense of human failure, a kind of existential shame that he has not been who he thought himself to be. A man’s conscience is commonly experienced as alien; but his ethical sense is a part (often the heart) of his central and best self. Moral codes tend to be specific and situational; but ethical principles are general and universal, seeking to provide guidelines for conduct in all possible situations. While morals tell us how to behave, ethics tell us what to aspire to. Therefore the central conflict of moral life is the struggle between instincts and morals; but the central tension of ethical life is the question of how to achieve one’s ethical aims.
Keniston, K. (1965). Morals and Ethics. The American Scholar, 34(4), 628–632. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41209317
We think personal morals need to be taken out of the equation and replaced instead with professional ethics. Our leaders need to make a conscious decision to act ethically, rather than morally.
