I don't think I am alone in saying I really enjoyed having Dr. Barry in class today. Even though I asked him a couple contentious questions and argued a more idealistic point of view than he seemed to espouse, I actually agreed with the vast majority of the things he said. I particularly appreciated his argument that one may have to compromise one's principles from time to time for the sake of efficacy, but that one must always be conscientious and "morally vigilant." In effect, he was saying that given the way things are, getting good things done demands certain actions (such as manipulation) that are not morally appealing. However, this does not mean such things should NEVER be done, but rather that one must commit such actions with caution and always realize the magnitude of the ethical implications at stake.
This reminded me a lot of Michael Walzer's argument that a politician must have dirty hands, but what we really want is for a politician to KNOW he or she has dirty hands and to feel guilty about it--to "have a soul," as he says. It seems to me this is at least partially true. The frustrating thing about an idea like this (and a lot of ideas in ethics) is that it depends so much on the character of the individual. If there is no structural guideline--a law or rule or definite public accountability--we the people are very much helpless when it comes to our officials' morality. Following a leader like Walzer's (or Barry's) requires a great deal of trust, which is exactly the opposite of the feeling most of us have about politicians. We learn not to trust them, but we discover that the only way for a politician to be at least marginally ethical and effective at the same time is to selectively violate principles while not sacrificing their "moral vigilance" or conscience.
The more I study these things, the more it reaffirms my belief that one does not elect an official mainly on their intelligence or effectiveness, but on what one can determine of their virtue, which in itself is a task of gargantuan magnitude. If we wish for strong leadership and some semblance of ethics from our leaders, it is hard for me to see it any other way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are right David, that people do not elect someone because he is intelligent. I know from my own perspective, I typically vote for the person based on what they convey to me that that stand for, their views on specific topics that I care about etc. I have not ever voted for someone because he/she was intelligent, and like you pointed out, "we discover that the only way for a politician to be at least marginally ethical and effective at the same time is to selectively violate principles while not sacrificing their "moral vigilance" or conscience." this leads to my confusion on where I really do stand. I dont like to be manipulated, and I know that if I was playing a game that used manipulation, I would not play, but I can't honestly say at this point anymore that I'm totally against manipulation.
ReplyDeleteI know we can't sit down with LBJ at the moment, however I don't think he thought he had dirty hands. On that note is there ever going to be a politician to admit they have dirty hands? Well I don't want to pick on Dick Cheney but he might be honest and this note. One could make an argument that dirty hands are not applicable to this case. Was the law broken? No. Were ethical boundaries clear violated? I don't think our class discussion proved that either. LBJ, innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDelete