Political ethics

Last updated

Political ethics (also known as political morality or public ethics) is the practice of making moral judgments about political action and political agents. [1] It covers two areas: the ethics of process (or the ethics of office), which covers public officials and their methods, [2] [3] and the ethics of policy (or ethics and public policy), which concerns judgments surrounding policies and laws. [4] [5] [6]

Contents

The core values and expectations of political morality have historically derived from the principles of justice. However, John Rawls defends the theory that the political concept of justice is ultimately based on the common good of the individual rather than on the values one is expected to follow. [7]

While trying to make moral judgments about political issues, people tend to leverage their own perceived definition of morality. The concept of morality itself derives from several moral foundations. Morality, seen through the lens of these foundations, shapes peoples' judgments about political actions and political agents.

Ethics of process

Niccolò Machiavelli is one of the most famous political theorists who spoke on, and later subverted, the matters of political ethics. Unlike Aristotle, he believed that a political leader may be required to behave in evil ways if necessary to maintain his authority. [8]

In contemporary democracies, a variant of this idea has been reframed as the problem of dirty hands, described most influentially by Michael Walzer, who argues that the problem creates a paradox; the politician must sometimes "do wrong to do right". [9] Some critics object that Walzer's view is justified. [10] Dennis Thompson has argued that in a democracy, unjust acts by a leader would be the fault of both the leader and the citizens because they did not hold their leader responsible. [11]

In large organizations, it is often not possible to tell which party is responsible for the outcomes—a phenomenon known as the problem of many hands. [12]

Political ethics requires leaders to meet higher standards than would be necessary for private life. They may have less of a right to privacy than ordinary citizens do, or no right to use their office for personal profit. Personal or private morality and political morality are often viewed as a conflict of interest. [13] Both individuals in the political domain as an authority and active civic participants can have these values bleed through to the personal sector of morality. An individual who learned the skills necessary in the political sector may apply these learned qualities in a setting outside of politics, often viewed as a private everyday setting. In contrast, one that is entering the political setting may have already held the qualities and virtues that are expected in the professional setting. The values already held by individuals will then be applied to the new political setting. Those that have emerged into the political sphere can benefit from knowing that virtues and morals can be influential prior to entering. [14]

Ethics of policy

Personal morality is also factored into public morality. Given the democratic republic present in the United States, public morality is often referred to as 'formal'. Abiding by the order of law, in addition to maintaining respect, are two critical factors in order to achieve the concept of public morality. These elements are expected when an individual is actively participating in the political sphere and are required for the behavior of political authorities. [15] Each citizen has their own belief and morals toward every topic, but it is the political authorities' duty to respect others' beliefs and advocate for the beliefs of their constituents while following the law and constitution. [16]

In the other area of political ethics, the key issues are not the conflict between means and ends, but the conflicts among the ends themselves. In the question of global justice, the conflict is between the claims of the nation state and citizens. [17] Traditionally, priority has been given to the claims of nations, but in recent years, thinkers known as cosmopolitans have pressed the claims of all citizens of the world.

Political ethics deals with realizing moral values in democratic societies where citizens (and philosophers) disagree about what ideal justice is. In a pluralist society, governments attempt to justify policies such as progressive taxation, affirmative action, the right to abortion, and universal healthcare. [18] Political ethics is also concerned with moral problems raised by the need for political compromise, whistleblowing, civil disobedience, and criminal punishment.

Foundations of (political) morality

According to Graham et al. (2009), [19] there are two broad classes of moral foundations: individualizing foundations and binding foundations.

Individualizing foundations

The two individualizing foundations to morality are the fairness/reciprocity foundation (ethic of justice [20] ) and the harm/care foundation (ethic of care [21] ). The fairness/reciprocity foundation represents a person's desire for fairness and reciprocity. The harm/care foundation concerns the caring attitude of a person towards another.

Binding foundations

The three binding foundations are in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The first two correspond to ethic of community, [22] and represent a person's belonging and attachment to a group dynamic. It is concerned with feelings like patriotism, obedience, etc. The last foundation corresponds to the ethic of divinity [23] and represents a person's desire to suppress or control humanity's nature of lust, selfishness, etc. (usually via spirituality).

Moral foundations, political identity and moral political judgments

Graham et al. (2009) [24] conducted a study to determine whether moral judgments about politics are affected by explicit or implicit political identities. Explicit political identity is the identity supplied by the study participant explicitly during the study. Implicit political identity is the participant's identity determined by the scientists based on an IAT test. [25] For both explicitly and implicitly supplied identities, they found that liberals gave more weightage to the individualizing foundations than the binding foundations, while making a moral judgment regarding political issues. On the other hand, the conservatives seemed to give an approximately equal weightage to both classes of foundations. However, they note that this distinction is not necessarily true across time and space.

Criticisms

Some critics (termed political realists) argue that ethics has no place in politics. [26] If politicians are to be effective in the real world, they cannot be bound by moral rules, and must pursue the national interest. However, Walzer points out that if the realists are asked to justify their claims, they will almost always appeal to moral principles of their own (for example, to show that ethics is harmful or counterproductive). [27]

Another kind of criticism comes from those who argue that citizens should not pay so much attention to politicians and policies but should instead look more closely at the larger structures of society where the most serious ethical problems lie. [28] Advocates of political ethics respond that while structural injustice should not be ignored, too much emphasis on structures neglects the human agents who are responsible for changing them. [29]


See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Morality</span> Differentiation between right and wrong

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong). Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Rawls</span> American political philosopher (1921–2002)

John Bordley Rawls was an American moral, legal and political philosopher in the modern liberal tradition. Rawls has been described as one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century.

Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other distinguishing feature. Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms, such as that of Isaiah Berlin, may be value pluralist.

Lawrence Kohlberg was an American psychologist best known for his theory of stages of moral development.

This index of ethics articles puts articles relevant to well-known ethical debates and decisions in one place - including practical problems long known in philosophy, and the more abstract subjects in law, politics, and some professions and sciences. It lists also those core concepts essential to understanding ethics as applied in various religions, some movements derived from religions, and religions discussed as if they were a theory of ethics making no special claim to divine status.

Ethics in the Bible refers to the system(s) or theory(ies) produced by the study, interpretation, and evaluation of biblical morals, that are found in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. It comprises a narrow part of the larger fields of Jewish and Christian ethics, which are themselves parts of the larger field of philosophical ethics. Ethics in the Bible is unlike other western ethical theories in that it is seldom overtly philosophical. It presents neither a systematic nor a formal deductive ethical argument. Instead, the Bible provides patterns of moral reasoning that focus on conduct and character in what is sometimes referred to as virtue ethics. This moral reasoning is part of a broad, normative covenantal tradition where duty and virtue are inextricably tied together in a mutually reinforcing manner.

Moral reasoning is the study of how people think about right and wrong and how they acquire and apply moral rules. It is a subdiscipline of moral psychology that overlaps with moral philosophy, and is the foundation of descriptive ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Walzer</span> American philosopher (born 1935)

Michael Laban Walzer is an American political theorist and public intellectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) in Princeton, New Jersey, he is editor emeritus of Dissent, an intellectual magazine that he has been affiliated with since his years as an undergraduate at Brandeis University. He has written books and essays on a wide range of topics—many in political ethics—including just and unjust wars, nationalism, ethnicity, Zionism, economic justice, social criticism, radicalism, tolerance, and political obligation. He is also a contributing editor to The New Republic. To date, he has written 27 books and published over 300 articles, essays, and book reviews in Dissent, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The New York Times, Harpers, and many philosophical and political science journals.

Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Historically, the term "moral psychology" was used relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development. Moral psychology eventually came to refer more broadly to various topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind. Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character, altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement.

Discourse ethics refers to a type of argument that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse. The ethical theory originated with German philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel, and variations have been used by Frank Van Dun and Habermas' student Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global justice</span> Issue in political philosophy

Global justice is an issue in political philosophy arising from the concern about unfairness. It is sometimes understood as a form of internationalism.

The ethics of care is a normative ethical theory that holds that moral action centers on interpersonal relationships and care or benevolence as a virtue. EoC is one of a cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by some feminists and environmentalists since the 1980s. While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize generalizable standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of response to the individual. The distinction between the general and the individual is reflected in their different moral questions: "what is just?" versus "how to respond?" Carol Gilligan, who is considered the originator of the ethics of care, criticized the application of generalized standards as "morally problematic, since it breeds moral blindness or indifference".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Shapiro</span> American political scientist

Ian Shapiro is an American legal scholar and political scientist who serves as the Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale University. He served as the Henry R. Luce Director of the MacMillan Center at Yale University from 2004 to 2019. He is known primarily for interventions in debates on democracy and on methods of conducting social science research.

Dennis Frank Thompson is a political scientist and professor at Harvard University, where he founded the university-wide Center for Ethics and the Professions. Thompson is known for his pioneering work in the fields of both political ethics and democratic theory. According to a recent appraisal, he has become “influential within the world of political theory" by offering “greater concrete political thought than Rawls” and by showing “an atypical grasp, for a political theorist, of the real political world.”

The American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP) is a learned society founded in 1955 by political theorist Carl Friedrich. Its aim is to bring together scholars in political science, law, and philosophy who are interested in interdisciplinary exploration of a range of problems in political and legal philosophy. The ASPLP's main activities are to hold an annual conference, on a topic chosen in advance by the membership, and to publish the papers, along with formal commentary and invited additional essays, in Nomos, its yearbook. As Friedrich explained in the Preface to Authority, the first yearbook: "We are calling the series NOMOS, which is the broadest Greek term for law, because in this term there are also traditionally comprised the notions of a basic political order and of customs and a way of life." He continued: "It describes reasonably well, and perhaps better than any term of modern English, what must be the focus of a society such as ours, uniting the several social sciences, law, and philosophy." That commitment to interdisciplinary normative inquiry has characterized the ASPLP and the Nomos series ever since.

Richard Allan Shweder is an American cultural anthropologist and a figure in cultural psychology. He is currently Harold H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor of Human Development in the Department of Comparative Human Development at the University of Chicago.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jonathan Haidt</span> American social psychologist (born 1963)

Jonathan David Haidt is an American social psychologist and author. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business. His main areas of study are the psychology of morality and moral emotions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pragmatic ethics</span> Theory of normative philosophical ethics and meta-ethics

Pragmatic ethics is a theory of normative philosophical ethics and meta-ethics. Ethical pragmatists such as John Dewey believe that some societies have progressed morally in much the way they have attained progress in science. Scientists can pursue inquiry into the truth of a hypothesis and accept the hypothesis, in the sense that they act as though the hypothesis were true; nonetheless, they think that future generations can advance science, and thus future generations can refine or replace their accepted hypotheses. Similarly, ethical pragmatists think that norms, principles, and moral criteria are likely to be improved as a result of inquiry.

Moral foundations theory is a social psychological theory intended to explain the origins of and variation in human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundations. It was first proposed by the psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham, building on the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. More recently, Mohammad Atari, Jesse Graham, and Jonathan Haidt have revised some aspects of the theory and developed new measurement tools. The theory has been developed by a diverse group of collaborators and popularized in Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. The theory proposes that morality is "more than one thing", first arguing for five foundations, and later expanding for six foundations :

<i>The Righteous Mind</i> 2012 social psychology book by Jonathan Haidt

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion is a 2012 social psychology book by Jonathan Haidt, in which the author describes human morality as it relates to politics and religion.

References

  1. ↑ Thompson, Dennis F. (2013-02-01), "Political Ethics", International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, doi:10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee633, ISBN   978-1-4051-8641-4, S2CID   243708205 , retrieved 2021-07-06
  2. ↑ Stuart Hampshire (1978). Public and private morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-521-22084-X. OCLC   3728767.
  3. ↑ Thompson, Dennis F. (1987). Political ethics and public office. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN   0-674-68605-5. OCLC   14818873.
  4. ↑ Amy Gutmann; Dennis F. Thompson, eds. (2006). Ethics and politics: cases and comments (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. ISBN   0-534-62645-9. OCLC   60588998.
  5. ↑ Bluhm, William Theodore; Robert A. Heineman (2007). Ethics and public policy : method and cases. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN   978-0-13-189343-6. OCLC   70060951.
  6. ↑ Wolff, Jonathan (2011). Ethics and public policy: a philosophical inquiry. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN   978-0-415-66852-1. OCLC   694393623.
  7. ↑ Leung, Cheuk-Hang (2016-12-05). "Cultivating Political Morality for Deliberative Citizens — Rawls and Callan Revisited". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 48 (14): 1426–1441. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1138393. ISSN   0013-1857. S2CID   147716573.
  8. ↑ Strauss, Leo (2014-07-04). Thoughts on Machiavelli. University of Chicago Press. ISBN   9780226230979.
  9. ↑ Walzer, Michael. "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands," Philosophy & Public Affairs 2 (1973), pp. 160-80.
  10. ↑ Paul, Rynard, and David P. Shugarman (eds.). Cruelty & Deception: The Controversy over Dirty Hands in Politics (Broadview Press, 2000). ISBN   978-1864031072
  11. ↑ Thompson, Dennis F. "Democratic Dirty Hands," in Political Ethics and Public Office (Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 11-39. ISBN   9780674686069
  12. ↑ Thompson, Dennis F. (2005). "The Problem of Many Hands". Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business and Healthcare . Cambridge University Press. pp.  11–32. ISBN   9780521547222
  13. ↑ Stark, Andrew. Conflict of Interest in American Public Life. (Harvard University Press, 2003). ISBN   9780674012134
  14. ↑ Mendeluk, Paulina (2018-06-29). "Public Sphere and the Political Morality in a Liberal Democracy". Analele Universităţii din Oradea, Seria Geografie. 29 (1). doi:10.30892/auog.24. ISSN 1221-1273.
  15. ↑ Deveaux, Monique (2002). "Political Morality and Culture". Social Theory and Practice. 28 (3): 503–518. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200228322. ISSN 0037-802X.
  16. ↑ Mendeluk, Paulina (2018-06-29). "Public Sphere and the Political Morality in a Liberal Democracy". Analele Universităţii din Oradea, Seria Geografie. 29 (1). doi:10.30892/auog.24. ISSN 1221-1273.
  17. ↑ Beitz, Charles. "Review Article: International Liberalism and Distributive Justice: A Survey of Recent Thought," World Politics 51 (1999), pp. 269-296.
  18. ↑ For examples, see note 3 below.
  19. ↑ Graham, J., Haidt, J., Nosek, B. A. (2009). "Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.
  20. ↑ Kohlberg, L. (1969). "Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization." In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  21. ↑ Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  22. ↑ Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). "The "big three" of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the "big three" explanations of suffering." In A. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). New York: Routledge.
  23. ↑ Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). "The "big three" of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the "big three" explanations of suffering." In A. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). New York: Routledge.
  24. ↑ Graham, J., Haidt, J., Nosek, B. A. (2009). "Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.
  25. ↑ Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). "Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
  26. ↑ Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. "Political Realism in International Relations," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
  27. ↑ Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (Basic Books, 1977), pp. 4-13. ISBN   978-0465037070
  28. ↑ Barry, Brian. Why Social Justice Matters (Polity Press, 2005). ISBN   978-0745629933
  29. ↑ Thompson (1987), pp. 5-6.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.