Keir Anderson is a student in the QUB first-year Human Nature module (PHL1002). He submitted the following Friday Question after reflecting on the analogy between a soul and a city-state in Plato's Republic:
In Plato’s dialogue Republic, he compares the human soul to the government of an idealized city, noting parallels between the two. In discussing this perfect city, he touches on the parallel concepts of morality. In light of current political controversies, this raises an interesting point: is there any moral code by which governments should abide? Naturally they must be bound by some sort of preconditions, a constitution or the like. Ideally, some set of ideals would be written into this, but what about issues that aren’t addressed therein?
For example, President George W. Bush has been verbally slaughtered for his role in waging the war in Iraq. The argument could be made for a “just war,” liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator. A different argument could be made about unjustly forcing Western political ideals upon an unwilling population. This sort of controversy seems to imply that, being unable to agree on a moral standard for the war, the United States should leave such things up to the voters, allowing them to use their personal moralities in conglomerate.
Perhaps more pertinent to the citizens of a nation is the domestic policies of its government. The question of administrative morality, while easily ignored in foreign matters, becomes harder to ignore closer to home; the more personal it becomes, the more relevant. One of the favorite cases in the United States, for example, is the issue of healthcare. Naturally, most people can agree that it is good for individuals to have access to modern medical services. However, the question never fails to arise: is it the moral responsibility of the government to provide for this? In this case, one would be more likely to say that, as an entity whose responsibility is to provide for the welfare of its people, the government should certainly offer this service.
Clearly government has some necessary responsibility toward its citizens, namely, to carry out the terms under which the government exists. In addition, there is also a certain requirement to keep up civil foreign relations, if only for the purpose of self-preservation. On the one hand, it seems logical to allow controversial issues to be decided by popular vote, rather than by a set moral code. After all, who would be responsible for determining such a thing? But on the other, popular opinion changes with spatiotemporal location, so it can’t adhere to any absolute morality. Should governments be held to their own moral code? And if so, how is that code determined?
Thanks for that interesting post; it certainly raises a lot of questions.
ReplyDeleteOne issue that I would like to raise, related to your post, is the following. There are two senses to the notion of a personal morality: (i) a moral position that an individual chooses to adopt and (ii) a moral position based on the subjective whim of the individual. In the case of (i) the moral position can be one objectively defended and thence an argument can be made for its universal application, whereas with (ii) the moral position is nothing more than one's personal sentiments.
Now, what I wonder is whether or not you think there is an objective moral position that insofar as it can be objectively defended can be promulgated universally?
Best
Gav
Hi Gaven,
ReplyDeleteYours is an interesting question. However, I think that there is an issue raised in the post that doesn't really depend on the answer to that question.
The issue is whether there is any difference in "personal morality" as it applies to individuals and as it applies to governments or states. (One way of reading Plato might be that there isn't: that it is all a matter of "balance" between parts of the states/individual.) So, if it turned out, for instance, that there was no personal morality in the sense of (i) for individuals, the question is whether that implies that there is no personal morality in the sense of (i) for states and governments. (Maybe, then, states should just do whatever they "feel" like doing.)
Anyways, I think that it's worth thinking about what the differences might be between the individual level and the level of the collective...
Best,
Ben