David Cameron’s injection of morality into the political discourse has struck a chord. He seems to have tapped into the zeitgeist: our thoroughly modern and amoral society has over time become a tragically broken and immoral one - to such an extent that, though many still struggle to cast aside their well-cultivated amorality, people are ready to follow someone who is prepared to lead. And it feels good…
But, it might also be very dangerous, particularly for the Tory Party. We do not need a long memory to recall that we were once regarded as the nasty party – nasty because we were seen as judgemental and condemnatory. Given that morality is, by its nature, judgemental, the risk Cameron takes is great. I, for one, find myself conflicted. At a personal level, I am comfortable with the moral judgements Cameron makes; and I lament the social breakdown that we see everyday. At a political level, I feel uneasy that moral judgements divide our society into ’them’ and ‘us’; and I fear for where morality, mis-used, has led in the past, so could lead in the future.
To resolve this conflict, I believe we need to get some fundamentals straight. This might seem abstract and somewhat academic for the blogosphere, but it is very important. If we are to talk about right and wrong, good and bad – as we need to – then we also need to understand what we mean by those terms. And that takes us into the realm of meta-ethics, so bear with me…
Broadly there are two schools of thought:
1) That good and bad are objectively defined, commanded by some form of ‘categorical imperative’, or universal truth.
2) That good and bad are determined by looking at consequences, through applying some ‘utilitarian calculus’.
In political terms, seeing morality in the first sense is dangerous, because it writes people and situations off simply for what they are, and there is nothing that can be done. For example, it could lead to an attitude that sex before marriage is just wrong, so single mothers should be condemned and there is nothing more to it than that. Likewise, if homosexuality is objectively wrong, then its discussion in schools can be banned, and there is nothing wrong with institutional discrimination. Perhaps it was this kind of approach to morality that alienated our Party from our country over a decade ago, and which made many of us sceptical about talking in moral terms ever again.
If however, morality is seen in consequential terms, then it can certainly enrich our politics and harness support for fixing our broken society. If marriage is seen as good because married couples tend to bring up children with a sense of belonging and self-discipline, which leads to less gangs and youth violence, but more educational achievement and economic activity instead, then that moral judgement can have a positive political outcome. Unlike the first interpretation, it means we don’t write anyone off – we can incentivise good outcomes; but also, when people make bad choices, we can work with them to take responsibility and turn the consequences around. Morality ceases to be about judging and condemning, but is instead about supporting and cajoling. Morality, seen in this way, does not create fixed classes of ‘saints’ and ‘sinners’, but joins us all together on the mission of better outcomes for everyone.
That is a moral, and political, mission I am happy to join.
No related posts.