Throughout this assignment I will aim to show how and to what extent moral discussion in the form of moral philosophy has informed actual politics, providing examples and an in depth understanding of the philosophy and its implications. The piece will then aim to come to a conclusion on the extent to which moral discussion should inform politics, the only issue I find whilst writing this is the issue of ones own political motivations, for some the idea of utilitarianism is essential to the way they perceive the perfect political landscape whilst others may be more swayed by the works of Rawls and Kant. Throughout I have tried to remain impartial looking at examples and providing a layout that establishes, what the ideology is, why the theory became popular and how it has impacted politics be it positive or negative.
To begin with I believe that the Kantian theory of morality is a good place to start, especially as Kant took morality very seriously throughout his life. Moral absolutism, the moral philosophy that Kant followed, or as Kant deemed it ‘Categorical Imperatives’ are key to how we each act, in Kantian theory these are commands we must follow based on pure reason alone, our desires must be kept separate to ensure we all follow the same rules. (Kant, Ellington and Kant, 1994) Looking at this specific area, we can see parallels to modern governments and laws, for instance theft. Theft is illegal, Kant would argue that this is because it is essentially something, we do not in turn wish upon ourselves, we shouldn’t steal because then we validate its legitimacy and therefore accept it also happening to ourselves. (Kant, 1990) Therefore, we have established real laws to ensure everyone understands. There are a few examples of Kant’s theories being used partially in modern governments because his philosophy on morality is well known. For instance, lying in a court of law, or to the police we are thought that it is morally wrong to do so, and this can be traced to Kant. Kant’s theories derived that we should never forsake these ‘Categorical Imperatives’ which in turn means we should never lie, steal, harm others because it is morally wrong to do so. This is where Kant’s theories begin to lose their strength in politics. To legally enforce that lying is immoral and therefore illegal you face numerous issues, some simply being how do you enforce this ruling the simple answer is you can’t. Kantian theories provide great examples of how moral discussions can inform actual politics, as mentioned prior you can trace some laws to the philosophy that Kant followed and shared with the world. If we follow Kant’s second formula, “The formula of humanity” we see that it follows the idea of autonomy, ‘this imbues us with an absolute moral worth, which means that we shouldn’t be manipulated, or manipulate other autonomous agents for our own benefit.’ This idea of autonomy is essential to Kant’s thinking, we must all know the truth of something to agree to it fully. This is also shown in actual politics, if we look at terms of service or any documents where we must sign to show we understand and agree something, this is because we follow the idea that we must remain fully informed to make legitimate decisions. A service provider cannot tell you one thing and provide another without a consequence legally, this is because our decisions were made on false information and therefore, we are not autonomous in our decision making. Kantian theory is widely accepted and used to inform actual politics in many nations and is a great beginning example to show that moral discussion can inform politics.
A great follow up to Kantian theory of morality is in fact its essential counter, the idea of Utilitarianism. This theory thought of famously by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham and where Kantianism focuses on the intent behind our actions, utilitarianism focuses instead on the consequences this in turn leaves the intentions of our actions irrelevant if it is for a set result. Modern utilitarianism focuses on the ends, what we as mortal beings seek which Mill and Bentham argue is happiness. (Corry and Sprigge, 1970) Everything we do from education, working, hobbies etc all have the same goal attached to them we all do something because in the end we think it will make us happy. Like Kantianism utilitarian thinkers believe that moral theory should apply to everyone equally, where they differ is on how to ground it, so everyone understands, and they believe that there is nothing better than our primal desires. This in turn makes utilitarianism a hedonistic philosophy ‘the good is equal to the pleasant.’ The ‘Principle of Utility’ is where we begin to see its impacts on politics and how it has and still to this day informs politics globally. The principle follows the idea that as special as we are as individuals, we are in fact no more special than any other human and therefore when making moral decisions we must do so from ‘the position of a benevolent, disinterested spectator.’ This is what we assume and presumably hope all leaders of nations do, think not about themselves but how best to help the large masses in the best way possible as to maximise its positive effects. Now understandably this is not the case for all nations, as we have seen in many African nations as well as countries such as North Korea etc the idea of the powerful taking all the benefits is a common theme. However, when looking upon nations such as our own, or the US and Canada we tend to see an agreement with the idea of a benevolent spectator. We often find that elected governments, politicians and officials often work for the general betterment of the area they represent and therefore act in accordance to benefit the many, and whilst this is not always the case it is generally accepted that it is the role, they “should play”. Therefore, showing that utilitarianism can and has informed actual politics, and understandably so as it follows an ideal for political rulers that we most likely all share. However, utilitarianism does have its critiques and as a result did split in to two forms: the first form being ‘Act utilitarianism’ where in “any” situation, you should choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number; and the second being ‘Rule utilitarianism’ where we ought to live our lives by rules that are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number’. Act utilitarianism came under critique due to its principle of having to act for the greater good, even if it means killing 1 to save 100, hence where the idea of rule utilitarianism came in where the rules, we live by instead are the foundation of our utility and not the individual actions we face. This again is where we see how moral discussion informs actual politics, we could argue we live, especially in the UK, in a rule utilitarianism system as the laws and policies that pass is generally considered to be for the continued benefit of those within it, for instance austerity whether perceived as good or bad, had the intention of providing a long term continued benefit for the majority despite the negative consequences is would have for the “few”.
The most convincing example of how to a large extent moral discussion can inform actual politics is from the 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the moral discussion of Contractarianism. (Hampton, 1988) One of the most famous and well agreed upon moral discussions even by today’s standards, Hobbes believed that morals are not natural or even primal but instead Hobbes established that, wherever there are groups of free, self-interested and rational individuals living together morality will emerge as a consequence and this is because those people are able to come to the realisation that there are far more benefits in cooperating. The social contract theory or contractarianism essentially comes down to the principle of trading in a portion of our freedom to reap the benefits of cooperative living, these are in turn explicit contracts something we agree to with a group of individuals that we ourselves accept and understand. There is however another form of contract, the idea of implicit contracts. Contracts that we deem as implicit are those which we have never truly agreed to, but we find ourselves beholden to nonetheless. For instance, immigration is an explicit contract, people who come in to the UK or any nation agree that they will follow the laws and rules in place by that country’s standards. However, nearly all the individuals born in that nation cannot say the same, being born in to a system you are therefore contractually obligated to follow the rules despite not formally agreeing to do so. And whilst this at first seems unfair, contractarians explain that despite not explicitly agreeing you have and still reap the benefits of the system often without knowing it, roads have laws to ensure they are safe, water is purified and public services are free (specific to the UK and Canada) because you pay taxes or your family does which means you have taken from the common pot, but also supplied it at the same time. We see the idea of contractarianism throughout politics and it has been one of the most profound moral philosophies to have an impact on politics itself. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and most of Europe we see that we all live in a social contract. We are all born or move in to a contract whether it be explicit or implicit and as a result we all supply a level of freedom to ensure we have protection from the government, the police etc. When we pay tax, we are therefore provided with benefits such as improvements to the local area, infrastructure, education, health services and many other things and whilst some argue that they do not receive as much of a benefit as others, the principle remains that by helping others within your contract they in turn are provided with the opportunity to help others as a consequence of your maintained support of the contract. This is a great example of the true extent of moral philosophies impact on actual politics, without the idea of the social contract who knows what state the modern world would be in today and whilst it seems perfect it does of course have its flaws, the idea of defection is an issue, where someone prioritises their own interests instead of cooperating with the contract itself. This is quite common in social contracts, for instance people breaking the speed limit because they refuse to wait, or people using the hard shoulder to overtake knowing its illegal, this is defection in action. This is often the case in situations in which we do not know the individuals that we are breaking the contract with, it is much easier to keep contracts when we make them with people that we know, in fact modern society is built upon the foundation of trust. Trust that an individual will keep their word and this is why we do not often see someone who freely makes an agreement break it, because there will be a moral outrage due to the fact they willingly made a contract that they themselves broke, it leaves you cast in a negative light in society and therefore limits your future potential. The contract theory has been key to maintaining public order without explicitly forcing anyone to do anything, and in that sense it is remarkable. It is also fundamental in the arguments against slavery being that only a free individual can truly make a contract, the contractors must be better off within the system than they would be without it essentially the system overall must enhance your life more than if you were alone. Unlike Kantianism and Utilitarianism, we see that Contractarianism has no morality until it is contractually agreed upon and therefore it can change as we change, hence with actual politics how we can change laws and policies. We change the contract because we all agree that it needs changing or updating, morality can change it is not set in stone but instead a determination that we all decide. Therefore, we choose the responsibilities that we take upon ourselves via the contracts we choose and are morally obligated to see them through because we took it upon ourselves to accept to the contract at hand.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Then we move on to whether politics should be influenced by moral discussions and this in turn becomes a complex and ironically moral decision the induvial must decide upon themselves. Personally, I believe that it is a give and take system and therefore we can choose which parts of moral discussion we agree upon and take them, leaving the parts that we deem non-beneficial out of the equation. Ultimately, we should be able to have moral discussion implement actual politics but not consistently and I will show why.
In relation to Kantianism and whether it should be used in actual politics it is not entirely clear, some aspects of course should be and were highlighted in the prior explanation of the concept. When people swear testimonies or make statements to officials such as the police, individuals should not lie as it corrupts the system if they do so and in turn if caught, they face punishment. However, this is not always the case, Kant’s moral discussion can be brought down to what is the intent and the outcome of the action, often a lie has the intent of deception and therefore is immoral by nature. This is not always the case and it is something Kant overlooks, the idea that even though an action is immoral the act of doing so can still be for a moral cause. Making someone feel positive about themselves for instance. Kant would say call it as it is, if someone is fat tell them and through that honesty you therefore encourage them to work hard and better themselves. However, others may see this as a cause to lie if they are fragile of mind they may be driven to depression and even more negative implications based on the answer you gave them, justifying the need to lie in some cases, it could be argued that is. When observing the work of Kant, it is also important to mention John Rawls, they shared a similar belief of morality. Both Rawls and Kant concluded that objective moral truths are not 'fixed by a moral order that is prior to and antecedent of our conception of the person and the social role of morality', but are 'constructions of reason.' (Rawls, 1980) To both men morality was not something we had been given by divine intervention, or gifted by the stars but instead something we all were capable of rationalising and understanding with little intellect. Both Rawls and Kant were key to modern democracies, none more arguably than the impact Rawls had on the United States and therefore it is hard, nay impossible to argue that such great thinkers should have no influence in modern politics in action. The theorising of these men provided the ability for millions to live in the modern nations we see before us. The extent to which is of course up to the beholder of the information, a government may use the knowledge provided by Kant and Rawls or in turn they may not. But as stated prior we see numerous impacts both writers have had on most of the western democracies including America.
Utilitarianism again faces the same issues of questioning that faced Kantianism, whilst we know it does impact politics, to what extent should it? This could come to an extent of criticism based on the outcome but again as with Kantianism it would ultimately be down to those in power as to if the information provided is in the end used. But judging the content alone I believe that utilitarianism shows us something very important about ourselves as humans, and that essentially comes down to what are we willing to tolerate to have a perfect society? When looking at ‘The ones who walk away from Omelas’ by Ursulak Leguin you are placed in a moral conundrum and the outcome you follow tells you a lot about yourself. Utilitarianism, even If you do not agree with it provides a lot of insight in to the morality of man and therefore deserves in my opinion to be at least considered when influencing politics, the idea of the many over the few has been numerous in the past and even the present. Most noticeably the ideas enforced by Lenin and later Stalin often had the image of the deaths of the few were for the betterment of the many. And whilst the image of utilitarianism if often overshadowed by the ideas that sacrifice of innocents for the betterment of the many is legitimate this is not the case for all thinkers of the ideology, Mill often argued in his two most famous works, ‘On Liberty’ and ‘Utilitarianism’ the first principle of utility is the protections of the rights of all. (Mill, 1974) (Mill and Plamenatz, 1949) Especially when looking into the ideas behind ‘Rule Utilitarianism’ we begin to see an ideology focused on the happiness on the many without the need for harming innocents and abusing power over rights.
Finally, we cover the creator of the ‘Leviathan’ himself, Thomas Hobbes and whether the ideas of contractarianism should influence modern politics. Like the Kantianism and Utilitarianism before it the question is an opinion and therefore it would be only deemed correct or wrong by those in power. However, to look at the information provided by Hobbes and equally by Locke despite differences on how and what humanity looked like prior both agree that a social contract of some description provided the betterment of humanity and the foundation of a functioning and successful society. (Hampton, 1988) (Locke et al., 1948) Now Rawls would critique them both stating that the idea is ‘political and not metaphysical’ however, since this is political science it applies just as well. It is well known and shown prior how impactful contractarianism has been on the political landscape, we ourselves live in a contract as we live and breath paying in to a system that provides benefits as a reward for the continued relinquishment of a certain amount of freedom. Unlike the other two however, I would personally like to emphasise the importance that contractarianism has had on politics and morality and therefore conclude that this should influence actual politics to the greatest of extents as it establishes the fundamental trust we as citizens place in one another to follow and obey the laws and not to become defectors as this would in turn have a consequence on our social standings to which we have focused on for so long in history.
To conclude, the extent to which moral discussion has an impact on actual politics is rather large, whether it be the ever-evolving morality of Hobbes or the unwavering rigidity of moral strength shown by Kant. Each thinker has in some way shaped politics for the good or the bad. Regarding if it should be allowed to, why not? It’s a very basic answer but they are only men, providing explanations to something they deem needed. Bill Clinton deemed Rawls the greatest political thinker of the 20th century and took on numerous ideas from the man himself. Politics is an evolution of the people and the structures that bind it, education is not threat to that in the end.
Stuck on your essay?
