Should politics be focused on morality? Discuss with reference to two thinkers we have studied so far on this course.
In this essay, I will analyse the work of the Sophists and Plato to discuss the extent to which morality should provide a sphere of influence in politics. I will consider the scope to which morality can be defined, and using the Sophists and Plato’s thesis’ I will discuss the role that their respective schools of thought have in interpreting key themes in political theory such as justice and knowledge. This essay will then continue to conclude that the convergence of morality and politics in any political system is seemingly inevitable.
To understand the role of morality in politics, we have to consider the territory and foundation to which morality does and does not cover in order to establish a resort between where morality and politics (Luco, 2014). The basis for defining “Morality” is built upon characteristics which influence an individual’s decision making within political thought. The five foundational concerns ascertained in the modern condition of “Morality” relevant to decision making include (1) Harm/Care of others, (2) Fairness/Reciprocity, (3) In-group/loyalty, (4) Authority/Respect, and (5) Purity/Sanctity (Haidt & Kesebir, 2010). Where the social classification of morality is delineated, the domain of “morality” can also outline a natural framework. This is characterised by (1) a code of conduct, (2) compliance with the conduct, and (3) reward or punishment for conduct (Stitch & Sekhar Sripada, 2006). Having a domain and framework outline the mergence of politics and morality because they demonstrate overlapping characteristics. Both the Platonic and Sophist definition of “Morality”, will look at the framework of morality as outlined above. This essay will reference the characteristics of a moral framework and the contents of a code of conduct.
Thrasymachus’ thesis cited morality as an unnatural limitation on the scope of one’s action. The thesis suggested that moral justice or a “just” action would only serve in the interest of the stronger (Cross & Woozley, 1966). He was a wide advocate of injustice noting that the unjust would usually gain advantage over the just in the political and economic sphere.
“By natural tendency of their actions, the unjust gain power over the just, so that the essential principle of just action comes to secure the interest of the stronger” (Sparshott, 1966).
Using Thrasymachus’ foundation that politics is a struggle between self-interested individuals, we can see a differentiation between politics and morality where a moral action serves in the interest of a higher power in contrast to politics, which is a self-served interest. It outlines that by subjecting the weak to the command of the strong, the weak are often acting against there own interest and that justice built upon the virtue of this philosophy is in the interest of another (Cooper & Hutchinson, 1997). On principle, this would argue that fundamental human nature is always self-interest driven, and thus would define a political community and the state as an artifice, controlled by the strong who would use the unnatural limitations of morality as a tool for aligning the interest of the weak to the interest of the strong. Therefore, in reference to the question, Thrasymachus would on principle argue that whilst the contents of morality is an artificial concept, it provides the platform for the strong to subject control over the weak. The skilled rhetoric which is required in politics, as taught in Sophism, would use morality as a weapon to successfully serve self-interest by controlling the weak in an arena of conflicting and competing interests.
Plato thesis in ‘The Republic’ provides a very much contrary account of morality to Thrasymachus, with the works of Plato critiquing him for failing to outline that the strong in politics have the power to take away the benefits of the weak, as a result of the natural laws and structures in human nature and the accrued power in a political structure. In a scenario where the weak are provided rights, life would become a perpetual war against all of us (Rosen, 2005). When analysing this account, it clearly defines that morality and politics are equally as much about self-interest, to the extent that we can see frequent overlaps in characteristics of the framework for morality, with that of a political framework. Certainly this analogy enables me to define in both scenarios, the key characteristics as a code of conduct, legitimacy and the ability to enforce the code amongst a state. When looking at guidelines in the key concepts in politics, namely polity, we can define the state as a structure of authoritative decision-making that is the sum of rules, mainly formal but also informal, concerning the locus and practice of authoritative governance in a polity (Marks, 1996). It is identical to morality in the sense that a state structure has a defined code of conduct (the sum of rules, i.e. legislation) and the legitimacy/enforceability (authoritative governance). The principle outlines that there is some natural element to the structural overlap in both politics and morality. Therefore, the focus of morality in politics is inevitable, where it is clear that the ruling class can in any context dictate the terms to which a moral or just act can be weaponised where they possess the means to enforce and legitimise the act. To act in a moral or just way would be beneficial to the strong in that it serves one’s interest and in the case of the weak to comply would be legitimate in a scenario where the proportion of fear of punishment would outweigh that of failing to act in a just manner.
Plato’s tripartite theory of the soul where the three characteristics; appetite, spirit and rationale, is used to represent the class-based system within society. Those driven by appetite are solely focussed on desire. Those driven by honour seek success in different endeavours, and those driven by ration seek knowledge and truth. Plato uses the ‘concept of Philosophers Kings’ that political power is founded on objective truth, not to be distorted by power or influence. It is in this scenario that Political Authority is provided with a guideline as it is based not on force alone, as much as having the intellect, just and virtuous ability in rule (Reeves, 2003). This would unquestionably contradict Thrasymachus’ where unlike the entitlement which ultimately the strong be born into, we see a progression in political development into a meritocratic vision of society. Plato was critical of the Sophists for the idea that one be charged for education and using the ‘Cave Simile’, he introduces the idea that it is the obligation of the rational and educated to pass on the knowledge as a form to complete the soul and balance society in perfect harmony (Reeves, 2003).
Bibliography
Cooper, J. & Hutchinson, D., 1997. Plato: Complete Works. Eds ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Cross & Woozley, 1966. Plato's Republic – A Philisophical Commentary. 1st ed. NY: St Martins Press.
Haidt, J. & Kesebir, S., 2010. Handbook of Social Psychology. 5 ed. NJ: John Wiley.
Luco, A., 2014. The Definition of Morality: Threading the Needle. Social Theory and Practice, July, 40(3), pp. 361-387.
Marks, G., 1996. An actor-centred approach to multi-level governance. Regional and Federal Studies, 6(2), pp. 20-38..
Rosen, S., 2005. Plato's Republic: A Study. 1st ed. New Haven(Conneticut): Yale University Press.
Sparshott, F., 1966. Socrates and Thrachymachus. The Monist , 50(1).
Stitch, S. & Sekhar Sripada, C., 2006. A Framework for the Psychology of Norms. 2nd Edition ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.