Action of Rulers on the Ethics scale

IRD: We want to talk about politics and ethics. Does politics necessarily include ethics? To develop policies, is considering ethics a necessity?

SD: As Aristotle said, man is a social creature and social relations strengthen human life. In their interactions with their surroundings, human beings utter a proposition having an objective (factual) nature; for example, Mount Damavan is Iran’s highest peak; water boils at hundred degrees centigrade; Socrates was the Plato’s teacher, etc., all referring to the realties. But there are some propositions that can be called normative. Ethical propositions are entirely normative. For example, the proposition that truth-telling should be adopted is a normative concept. This reveals the common ground of morality and politics. I mean, in political, theoretical and philosophical discussions, we face normative questions: Who should govern, how to govern and what are consistent political relations?

Hence we see the questions put forward in ethics, having a normative nature they enter the domain of politics, such as the necessity of having someone to govern and whether following or rejecting a policy is advised.

If Aristotle considers the human being a political animal, he meant that adopting policy is of human affairs and related to social relations and it is different from the matters not focused on social relations. Acquiring knowledge is included in the field of human activities, but does not involve normative propositions.

After accepting the common ground of ethics and policies, we can evaluate the political measures on the ethics scale. As we evaluate someone’s behavior according to ethical norms, politicians’ measures must be evaluated based on both normative and moral affairs. The relationship between ethics and politics is like that between sugar and milk; required in human relationships and not separable. As human social behavior should be weighed on the ethical scale, human political behavior focused on the regulation of relations with others must be measured based on ethics: who should govern, what political system is acceptable, where is the source of political legitimacy, and how to rule?

IRD: What should our perception of ethics be in the political trends? Is it needed to define particular ethics in politics?

SD: In Old Persian literature, we encounter the concept of ethics frequently; the ethics deal with moral virtues. From the perspective of old literature, morality is subjective, but in the new world with its new definitions, it is focused on human behavior. For example, the Khaje Nezamolmolk’s Sisat-Nameh (Letter of Politics) and the Letters of Advice collection deal with ruling matters, meaning the king’s conduct. Namely, they wanted kings to be kind, act based on moral virtues and as God’s substitute on earth; put emphasis on virtues and reject immoralities. Then, there was such a relation between ethics and governance and it attempted to balance the individual or social action of kings and rulers based on ethics; of course, with a special emphasis on personal attitudes.

But in the new world and at least in the three or four centuries that theories and new ethical schools have emerged, ethics is not just categorized based on virtues and immoralities, but has found an objective basis with more emphasis on human conduct rather than attitude. Accordingly, if the two schools of utilitarianism and deontology are considered, they mainly deal with principles and frameworks that balance the behavior of politicians objectively. So, I would say that in current following of policy, there is no way not to balance political actions: the individual virtues are not that important anymore, but what is important is to evaluate the politicians’ actions with some criteria. If utilitarianism is concerned, evaluation can be made in a way that, for instance, whether Tony Blair’s actions in the war with Iraq were in favor of national interests. Regardless of whether he might be a good person living a simple life, when it is attempted to evaluate him in the field of political ethics, his personal virtues are not considered, but we regard the totality of his political actions to see whether they were of collective benefits and whether his political actions were in the greatest favor of the people. It means having an objective criterion from the perspective of ethical behavior.

But assumedly, if the task is concerned, we should see whether policies of a politician or government ensure the protection of minority rights and eliminate the discrimination that causes disadvantages to the lower classes. Such viewpoints should include the “must” and “must not” for politicians, and the way of governing. Therefore, with those criteria the ethical authority of the political behavior would be balanced based on ethics. It seems that in the moral evaluation of politics, more than virtues and immoralities we deal with national interests, macro-policies and minority rights protection.

Therefore, first ethics cannot be separated from politics, and the relationship between ethics and politics is like that between milk and sugar. Second, in past times, politics was evaluated by moral criteria, but since Machiavelli and then Hobbes who proposed new theories of following policy, the ethical behavior among politicians has been balanced inter-mindedly and objectively.

IRD: Is it enough to consider the common ground for ethical policies?

SD: To understand to what extent intrusive actions of politicians provide public interests, we should note that if their actions benefit a certain group, we face sociality and selfishness, not the national or collective interest. National interest concerns all people. So from the perspective of utilitarianism, if politicians act to benefit a particular group, it is not moral and justified. Any action of the politicians should necessitate the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. For example, if the opponents of Tony Blair in opposition parties and journalist critics recognized that Blair’s decision to invade Iraq was against the national interests and public benefit, his decision has been immoral: Blair’s measure should be assessed in terms of ethics and minimum benefits and minimum losses. The majority of politicians think that ethics means temperament, but the mood is a criterion to have relations. We also have other new criteria in ethics. Old teachings do not suffice and assessments based on the individual mood of politicians and virtue-seeking ethics is not enough. Since the world is formed by the middle class, policy-making should be appropriate to them and by considering them, ethical judgment about politicians can be carried out inter-mindedly and objectively.

If we consider the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq, what happened after overthrowing Saddam, the dictator: did it lessen people’s suffering? The answer is not that certain, and it should be noted that the democratic mechanisms need capacities not found nowadays in Iraq. At least, we know that the majority of Iraqi society was more secure at that time, but the benefit of overthrowing a dictator cannot be ignored. I mean, given all the criteria of utilitarianism, our evaluation does not regard the attack on Iraq as ethical, because it is not clear whether it necessitates maximization of benefits and minimization of pain and sufferings.

From a rule-centered utilitarianism, if it is supposed that such a policy, i.e. international aggression, becomes regular and numerous countries are attacked, possibly it will become a global law and many countries might suppose they are allowed to the attack each other. However, in this case the resultant pain and suffering are more than its benefits. So considering the benefits of the utilitarian teachings, we can criticize the politicians’ conduct, results, and make an assessment of whether it is of maximum benefit.

It is obvious that politicians should coordinate themselves with moral criteria and if that does not happen, a policy will be mistaken. Following policy concerns humans and politicians should be responsible. Following policy is ethical-bound and the politician who ignores critics undoubtedly commits errors. As non-political actions can be evaluated on an ethical scale, the actions of politicians can also be balanced based on ethics.