By - Dr Asangba Tzudir
The idea of the moral and the moral contentions comes from judgments based on ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in various contexts. So, whatever judgments are made is based on thoughts, acts etc. On the acts of the good, which even Greek philosopher Aristotle conceptualized, said that, “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for that reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” If something is ‘justified’ as the good, then it is good in itself, and not merely because it leads to something else. The spirit of which Aristotle said, and its intended understanding ought to be the spirit and essence of the moral politics. Moral politics which is different from political ethics provides room for making moral judgments based on the political ethics.
The question of the moral politics raises a fundamental question pertaining political ethics of what ought to be the case in consideration of the larger well-being. Every Government and its associated policies of governance come with its own political ethics. However, the question is whether it gives room for moral politics to intervene in the political ethics and its associated functioning. This becomes a pertinent issue in the face of the State Government that defines their own understanding of the ‘acts of good’ or one that aims at the good. Now when the question of prioritization arises, the very scope of the well being of everyone finds defeated and which then shifts to the question of who benefits out of the prioritization. Evidence abounds, and in its pursuit the act of the good of palm greasing and scratching each other’s back breaks the welfare equation. Such a nature of the governmental functioning has brought about a ‘normalisation’ of sorts where the idea of the acts of good and prioritization often finds questionable, and which also becomes the means through which more power can be realized.
However, the moral politics should not be sacrificed at the altar of political ethics thereby staging and enforcing the ‘will’ of the government contrary to the ‘will’ of the people. On the whole it is not just about creating a so called harmonious state but a framework that should look towards what can possibly be considered as one that provides a ‘good life’ for the people. This should include a space for the populace to let them make right claims.
The space for moral politics also needs to go beyond moral judgments by accommodating the right and the rational claims. While rights are either given or claimed, it is the latter that makes the issue of rights contentious. Yet, a ‘good life’ can only be envisaged when there is space to accommodate the ‘will’ of the people so also rational claims.
While interests are bound to differ, and in the evolution of contending interests on the idea of ‘good life’ and ‘good acts’ the state can easily turn to the denial of equal concern and respect through the enforcement of a particular vision of their ‘good life’ thereby privileging inequality and injustice. American Philosopher, Ronald Dworkin’s expression on the basic political right to equal concern and respect towards its citizens demands due warrant in that the Government must treat those whom it governs by giving equal concern and respect. The state is obliged and bound by duty to treat each person, being subjects of the state, as a moral and political equal and also give equal concern and respect while catering to the needs of its own subjects. The state as the provider and guarantor of life of an individual citizen should act upon the morally obligated duty with a realisation that no one deserves to be denigrated, or exploited or strip off one’s rights. This can be translated into praxis only where there is space for moral politics to operate within the domain of moral judgments. Under normal circumstances no one should be entitled to more opportunities while depriving the others.
The current state of affairs and the unethical means of living which have become habitual and now finds normalized is somehow rooted in a long standing history of denial of equal rights and opportunities.
As such, the government needs to act responsibly and which is ‘necessarily guided by the principle of the moral’ – the moral politics. To act responsibly while considering the larger whole means to be morally guided. It is morality that gives impetus to be responsible.
Considering the status, understanding of the ‘acts of good’ the need for moral politics is not just a theoretical or a meta-ethical narrative, nor a sort of philosophical propaganda, but a question concerning welfare, of life and living in praxis. The attitudinal trend of ‘who cares’ needs to be shed off if morality or moral politics is to be aligned with the well being of all.
(Dr Asangba Tzudir contributes a weekly guest editorial to The Morung Express. Comments can be emailed to asangtz@gmail.com)
