“Without god, everything is permitted” was the memorable phrase of one of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s famous fictional tortured philosophers, Ivan Karamazov. This has been discussed and debated by moral philosophers, theologians, students, and teachers rather extensively, but has not entered the realm of politics enough.
In an increasingly secular society, how relevant is the concept of morality in our political systems? The analysis of political decisions should take into account what philosophical or moral justifications are at the root of these decisions. Of course, one cannot make absolute assumptions about god or other higher powers in existence. However, one must not deny that such a belief requires an amount of faith, while faith is not knowledge nor is it a scientific truth. This is not to assert disrespect, but rather, objectivity, alongside the philosophical concern of whether or not an assertion, argument, and conclusion is valid. Any moral argument, or justification requires an objective, absolutist standard that exists above humanity. If and only if that standard, or universal truth existed, then one could argue that public debate, and politics ,could be linear. Technically, every single human being has the capability and the capacity to seriously wrong someone – but they do not always have the incentive, reason, or need to do so. There is no reason as to why, without a god, humans would be naturally malicious, or naturally good.
So what drives morality? As a species, humanity wants to preserve itself, and has therefore come up with efficient systems to do so – morality may be one of them, although it may also serve as another means of attaining power. “Malicious” acts are merely distortions of self-interest.
The underlying problem is that in this indifferent universe it is not possible to explain why anything is morally right or wrong without resorting to opinion – unlike physics, for example, morality is not a feature of the universe, nor is there an epistemological basis for it. This may also bring one back to Hume’s is-ought problem; one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”. One may say that getting punched in the face hurts them (is), but to say that therefore no one should punch them (ought) is to jump through an important gap, where one goes from objective fact to subjective value.
In politics, this leads to policy and value judgments. Policy decisions generally include both positive and normative statements. Analysts can determine what is objectively more economically efficient. In some cases, they can even determine what is more socially equitable. Let’s assume that there is a new policy introduced for universal healthcare, and that it was factually determined that economically, it would be less sustainable, but socially, it would be more equitable. Efficiency and equity are both values that are held at varying degrees by different citizens and politicians.
Yet, it is impossible, without the existence of an objective morality, to determine which one is the right one to be favoured by the public. Therefore, politics is rendered circular as it is essentially not a path towards ethics or progressivism. No one is able to objectively determine what the right policy is – so, assertions of morality in politics can lead to polarization, such as the different moral conceptions inherent in the United States political spectrum show. More than often, politicians and citizens will assert a political truth with an underlying assumption of a universal morality, such as an appeal to “universal” family values, or nationalism. This also displays the is-ought fallacy. Both sides, whether proponents of efficiency, or equity, are guilty of this. Those arguing in favour of economic efficiency will jump from what is (i.e. “decentralized healthcare is more efficient”) to what ought to be (“we must have decentralized healthcare or we will lose our national identity”). Efficiency is not necessarily related to morality; it simply involves a value judgment, as do all political decisions. However, all of these arguments are empty, as the void between “is” and “ought” remains.
Not only does this deem politics circular, but it also invites for a game of pandering and appeal to emotion. Politicians want power – they want to get elected. They will state subjective arguments that appeal to their own key interest groups and disguise self-advancing topics as “moral issues”. In Germany, for example, a country that values efficiency highly, politicians have come up with a compromise in order not to politicize every governing act on the basis of moral judgments. Based on what is called “Leitkultur”, which is rooted in German idealism, politicians isolate certain issues from the realm of public debate by developing a standardized merit system. Taking in to account the inefficiency of many democracies today, have politics become to connected to moral discourse?
