|
|
|
|
Politics &
Ethics Politicians, like witch doctors and priests, are demagogues to at least some degree. They prey on our fears and position themselves as our saviors: that is how they gain our confidence and esteem – it is what gets them elected! It’s commonly accepted that, in order to win an election, politicians often disguise their true feelings and avow beliefs that are popular. It’s also known that politicians use their position to their personal advantage, as well as to get re-elected. The term "pork barrel" (legislative appropriations that are designed to ingratiate legislators with their donors and constituents – now referred to euphemistically as “earmarks”) dates back to the beginning of the 20th century, and corruption in politics has always been a factor. Politics, after all, is the art of convincing others that your point of view is the correct one. When people discuss good and evil they attempt to prove their point with facts. The problem is that, when it comes to ethics, there are no facts. That which we perceive to be either good or evil is based upon our way of thinking. Good and evil, or right and wrong, are not objects that can be analyzed in a test tube, consequently they tend to be presented as particulars based on what a majority of the people involved believe. In his treatise, Science and Ethics, Bertrand Russell states: “Ethics is thus closely related to politics: it is an attempt to bring the collective desires of a group to bear upon individuals; or conversely, it is an attempt by an individual to cause his desires to become those of his group. This latter is, of course, only possible if his desires are not obviously opposed to the general interest: the burglar will hardly attempt to persuade people that he is doing them good, though plutocrats make similar attempts, and often succeed.” Many people are of the opinion that morals, a sense of right and wrong, stem from a priori knowledge — an awareness with which we are born. Consequently, they feel that anyone who disagrees with them on a question of ethics, must, therefore, be immoral – or at least mistaken. Empiricists, on the other hand, feel that all knowledge comes from experience or observation. In other words, that a sense of what is good or evil is something that we learn. Again, though, when people observe the conduct of someone whose values differ from those that they were taught, they’ll likely infer that this person’s actions are wrong. The reality is that, though there may be a consensus of opinion, good and evil or right and wrong, are largely a matter of perspective. If your family is hungry, and your wealthy landlord hoards all that the earth yields, it might seem to you that the good thing to do is to feed your family – even if it involves theft. To the landlord, though, it is evil for you to take that which they perceive to be their property. It would seem that humans are discriminatory by nature. We tend to feel that, that which is familiar is good and that which is unfamiliar is not. A judge is supposed to be unbiased; however, all judgment is based on what one truly believes to be good or evil, right or wrong. Even when there are rules, or guidelines, on which their decision is to be based, it is still largely determined by their point of view. When someone who is being judged feels that the judgment is unfair, based on their perspective, they have a tendency to believe that the person on whose opinion the judgment is based is either, unlearned or mistaken or, even worse, corrupted by politics. That is, that their judgment is perverted by their affiliation with others. Unfortunately, this is sometimes the case. All too often, though, it is purely a matter of divergent views. Because we all can have such differing views, when there is disagreement, if right and wrong truly exist, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. Each person in this situation will look to others for validation of their point of view, even if they must convince them that their perspective on the situation is the proper one. Laws are established to provide order. If you’re a pragmatist, a law would be judged good, if it does that for which it was designed. If you’re an idealist, you probably don’t believe in laws, altogether. For a law to be fair, though, it must apply equally to all. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. Too often, laws are enforced selectively. If, a law is considered “good” by the majority of those involved, then it needs to be enforced without exception. However, when wealthy persons are able to buy their way out of a situation with expensive lawyers that would send a person of lesser means to prison, how can the law be called fair? And how can we not find it repugnant when our leaders pass and enforce laws, which they themselves ignore? How can religious and political leader speak of lofty morals and anathemize those whom they feel are deficient in them, when they, themselves, live life in contradiction of them. The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek, hypocrisies, which means, the act of playing a part on the stage. The word, as we use it, means to feign to be what one is not, or to profess certain virtues that one does not truly hold dear. A hypocrite, then, is someone who affects certain moral virtues that they do not, in fact, practice. In his play Tartuffe: the Hypocrite, Moličre’s title character was a supposed “man of God” who was taken in by Orgon, a prominent citizen of Paris, to assist him with his spiritual well-being. Tartuffe, though, was in reality a debaucher who lusted after his patron’s wife and daughter. We first begin to observe hypocrisy in the world, as children, when our parents tell us to “do as I say, not as I do”, or when teachers attempt to instill in us a sense of right and wrong through the use of parables. These lessons contain morals which often appear to be in contradiction to the way they, themselves, live. Who among us was not taught The Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, and then discovered that in the real world it became, “Do unto others before they do unto you” – and that people’s only concern with gold is the acquisition of it. Why does there seem to be so much hypocrisy around us? Is this the true nature of humans? In a sense, yes! Life is a balance of hard and soft, hot and cold, wet and dry. The Chinese yin and yang represent the duality of the universe. It is a depiction of two opposites that are locked in both conflict and balance. There is no right without wrong, no pleasant without the unpleasant and no joy without sorrow. Within each of us lies the potential for good or evil and, often, the two are in conflict. People, who find themselves in leadership positions know that they must profess morals which they feel to be right. Sometimes, though, these morals are in contrast with the way that they live. Most peoples’ contradictions are harmless; e.g., a doctor who smokes on the sly, a health food proponent who sneaks Twinkies at midnight or even someone who stresses the importance of respect for the law, but who occasionally exceeds the speed limit. This is human. We often do things that we know aren’t quite right. However, we know that we shouldn’t glory in our frailties so instead we purport what we truly believe to be right; even though we may sometimes break our own rules. People, though, who preach the virtues of honesty and condemn others for their lack of it, but who cheat, lie and debauch themselves, are the true hypocrites. Adults tend to forgive small hypocrisies for it’s as Voltaire noted, “It [tolerance] is the natural attribute of humanity. We are all formed of weakness and error: let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly. That is the first law of nature”. We’ve learned through life’s travels that there is a certain disparity between ideal and reality. Children, though, have just begun this journey. It’s most important, if we truly want to teach them right from wrong, that we live by what we profess. Everyone, especially parents, teachers and religious leaders, must remember that, no matter how virtuous their words, it is their actions that will be remembered. Perhaps, too, the time has come to cease teaching our children a whitewashed version of history. At least by high school, they should come to learn that, though our forefathers built a great nation, they were humans and possessed all of the human frailties that are within us all. Many of our early, great leaders had lapses in moral judgment and made mistakes or bad decisions. We do not need to play down or ignore them to enhance the image of these people or their accomplishments. They are people, after all, and people make mistakes. We, especially, should not glorify leaders from the past who, in reality, were despicable. Teaching a glossed-over account of history amounts to indoctrination and defeats the whole purpose of the study of history – to learn from the mistakes of others so as not to make the same blunders. As George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Copyright © September 2007 Michael D. Kerrigan
- Plato - Republic III
|
“Yet isn’t it more shameful when
someone not only spends a good part of his life in court defending himself or
prosecuting someone else but, through inexperience of what is fine, is persuaded
to take pride in being clever at doing injustice and then exploiting every
loophole and trick to escape conviction — and all for the sake of little
worthless things and because he’s ignorant of how much better and finer it is to
arrange one’s own life so as to have no need of finding a sleepy or inattentive
judge?”