Dialectics: Politics and Morals

This week we listened to an interview with Quentin Skinner on Machiavelli’s The Prince. One of the themes that came up was the idea of ruling with brutality when necessary. He believed the ends justified the means; preservation of the state was the ultimate goal. However, don’t mistake this as always ruling viciously. He believed rulers had to resort to evil sometimes and when it was absolutely necessary. I found this interesting because it jumped around this struggle between political ends and moral ends. Machiavelli doesn’t dismiss morality entirely, but he politically defines the concept. He shapes it into the criteria for accepting cruel action. He does this because he knows that sometimes good results come from harsh actions.

Surprisingly, this idea jumped at me when the Global Activism speaker, Mary Njoroge, came to talk to us. In our discussion groups, we explored this dualism between ethics and politics. In the healthcare debate, yes, it’s morally right that all people should have access to basic healthcare services. However, is that the only reason why a fixing of our healthcare system is so important? No, it’s crucial for our economy since health care costs are undermining its capability. In history, we learned about the reasons slavery was abolished in other nations. Yes, moral revelations about its true horrors was a major cause; however, slavery led to constant tension and rebellion. The high costs in maintaining slaves and rebellion also assisted in its abolition. So in order for the U.S. to aid Africa with education efforts, is a moral incentive enough? Do we also need a political drive (i.e. helping Africa will drastically boost the global economy which in effect helps our nation)?

So often in today’s world, people try to separate politics and morals as much as possible. Politicians are viewed as the least trustworthy officials and religious leaders are the least informed of political events. Politics and moral are viewed as polar opposites. But are they really? Politics can be a necessary expression of ethics. Often, the only way to achieve an ethnic goal is through a group effort- i.e., politics. We live in a society run by politics. So when we practice ethics in relation to society, shouldn’t it be integrated with politics also? Humanitarian efforts that are translated into action are governed by political mechanisms. Our morality pleads with our conscience that we can’t watch and stand by as people starve to death. However, whom we choose to help specifically (or not to help) is a political question.

Each concept doesn’t stand as strong as they do together. In reality, politics/economics can’t stand isolated. The role ethics plays in politics is its premise and its tool. Similarly, there is no moral life unless economic and political life is established first. There can be no moral life that is not both economic and political. We can illustrate the relation between the two in the human figure. Think of our body as the “politics” and our soul as the “morals”. They both coexist and need each other to form one person. We should strive to think about this dialect more often in our lives. Maybe, like Machiavelli’s The Prince, this duality applies more to our leaders. When we seek to create effective policies, we should seek to incorporate a combination of political and moral incentives. The advantages of each will help attract a broader range of people. Our political views are shaped by our personal beliefs (or our morals), and our morals are shaped over time through “political” experiences. We need to eliminate this fear of mixing the two ideas and being afraid of those consequences. Combining the two and trying to find the middle ground gives us a stronger drive and purpose in achieving anything we want. Like they say, “two is always better than one.”