Political ethics

Niccolò Machiavelli is one of the most famous (or infamous) political theorists that 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.[5]

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”.[6] The politician uses violence to prevent greater violence, but his act is still wrong even if justified. Walzer’s view has been criticized.[7] Some critics object that either the politician is justified or not. If justified, there is nothing wrong, though he may feel guilty. Others say that some of the acts of violence that Walzer would allow are never justified, no matter what the ends. Dennis Thompson has argued that in a democracy citizens should hold the leader responsible, and therefore if the act is unjustified their hands are dirty too.[8]

In large organizations it is often not possible to tell who is actually responsible for the outcomes—a problem known as the problem of many hands.[9]

Political ethics not only permits leaders to do things that would be wrong in private life, but requires them to meet higher standards than would be necessary in private life. For example, they may have less of a right of privacy than do ordinary citizens, and no right to use their office for personal profit. The major issues here ultimately concern the concept of conflict of interest.[10]

As stated above, personal or private morality and political morality is often viewed as a conflict of interest. However, it is important to know that these two concepts of morality can also maintain a common positive relationship between the two. Whether an individual is involved in the political domain as an authority or as an active civic participant, these values bleed through to the personal sector of morality as well. An individual that learned the skills necessary in the political sector may apply these learned qualities in a setting outside of politics, often viewed as a private every day 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. Therefore the values and skills already held will then be applied to the new political setting, as anticipated. Reciprocity, as in the context of deriving those traits are commonly present when entering the field, if the qualities were not already learned. Both concepts of morality include different expectations, but to say the least, there is a correlation present between the two. Whether the virtues and values were acquired or previously held, they simply factor in and apply to both settings. Those that have emerged into the intense political sphere, knowing that virtues and morals can certainly be an influence, but building one’s character can be substantially beneficial prior to the entrance. [11]

Personal morality is also factored into public morality as discussed in the previous section. However, given the Liberal democracy present in the United States, public morality is often referred to as 'formal'. Abiding by the order of law, in addition maintaining respect are simply 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 ultimately required for the behavior of political authorities.[12] Each citizen has their own belief and morals toward a particular controversial topic, nonetheless it is the political authorities' duty to respect others' belief and advocate for their constituents beliefs while following the law and constitution. [13]

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. For example, in the question of global justice, the conflict is between the claims of the nation state and citizens on one side and the claims of all citizens of the world.[14] 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 not mainly with ideal justice, however, but with realizing moral values in democratic societies where citizens (and philosophers) disagree about what ideal justice is. In a pluralist society, how if at all can governments justify a policy of progressive taxation, affirmative action, the right to abortion, universal healthcare, and the like?[15] Political ethics is also concerned with moral problems raised by the need for political compromise, whistleblowing, civil disobedience, and criminal punishment.

Some critics (so called political realists) argue that ethics has no place in politics.[16] If politicians are to be effective in the real world, they cannot be bound by moral rules. They have to 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).[17]

Another kind of criticism comes from those who argue that we 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.[18] 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.[19]

• Legal ethics
• Moral authority
• Natural and legal rights
• Political philosophy
• Political theology
• Statism

• Applbaum, Arthur Isak. “Democratic Legitimacy and Official Discretion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 21 (1992), pp. 240–274.
• Beerbohm, Eric. In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2012). ISBN 978-0691154619
• Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (Vintage, 1999). ISBN 978-0375705281
• Dworkin, Ronald. Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Political Debate (Princeton University Press, 2008). ISBN 978-0691138725
• Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. The Spirit of Compromise (Princeton University Press, 2012). [[Wikipedia:Book sources|ISBN 978-0691153919]]
• Fleishman, Joel, Lance Liebman, and Mark H. Moore, eds. Public Duties: The Moral Obligations of Government Officials (Harvard University Press, 1981). ISBN 978-0674722316
• Margalit, Avishai. On Compromise and Rotten Compromises (Princeton University Press, 2009). ISBN 978-0691133171
• Mendus, Susan. Politics and Morality (Polity Press, 2009). ISBN 978-0745629681
• Parrish, John M. Paradoxes of Political Ethics: From Dirty Hands to the Invisible Hand (Cambridge University Press, 2007). ISBN 978-0521122924
• Philip, Mark. Political Conduct (Harvard University Press, 2007). ISBN 978-0674024885
• Sabl, Andrew. Ruling Passions: Political Offices and Democratic Ethics (Princeton University Press, 2002). ISBN 978-0691088310
• Thompson, Dennis F. Political Ethics and Public Office (Harvard University Press, 1987). ISBN 9780674686069
• Thompson, Dennis F. Restoring Responsibility (Cambridge University Press, 2005). ISBN 9780521547222