Sayan 1

Name Sayantan DasGupta

Instructor Steve Kirchhoff PSCI 356
8th December, 2011
The power and relevance of moral virtue in todays politics
In Works and Days, Hesiod lays down the framework of human excellence in a just
society, the trinity of which is righteousness, honesty and strife for moderation: Goodness
where we have to sweat To get at her (Works and Days, 12). This universal concept is later
applied by Plato and Aristotle in their quest for a just and good life in a political city-state. But
this entire transcendental notion of virtue seems more and more abstract and obsolete in modern
society where belief systems are extremely disconnected from one another. Today moral virtue
presents itself as a double-edged sword because the warring sides in our political spectrum
cannot agree upon one true virtue. Universalism has failed to stand the test of time and has lead
to the question of whether virtue is complete anywhere without perception, context and time.
Perhaps the search for one true virtue is just futile and it is even advisable to avoid
such grand shenanigans in modern politics. Confucius claims that: If a true king were to arise,
we would surely see a return to Goodness after a single generation (Analects, 2.24). It is very
hard to believe that if Barack Obama (or any other leader for that matter) emerged as the most
virtuous one in human history, the state of our republic will be in any better disposition than it is
right now. Waiting for a messiah, whose return will trigger the good society to fall in place is
akin to waiting for the end of times and the second coming of Christ. It seems though, that we
indeed secretly yearn for our political leaders to be gods of sorts. The blame partially lies among
the politicians with their lofty and irrational campaign promises. Public judgment of character is

often flawed. The public is often impulsive, prejudiced and

sentimental. And it is easier for rabble-rousing demagogues to manipulate these vulnerabilities.
The rhetoric of unscrupulous and self-serving leaders is mistaken for empty promise and signs of
hope. This man among you, mortals, is wisest who, like Socrates, understands that his wisdom
is worthless (Apology, 150). Our politics is too much polarized today to even consider such an
idea of an overarching, wholesome good. Our personal socio-political beliefs in issues such as
evolution or abortion are so dissociated down the middle that it is almost foolhardy to search for
a common ground, a common consensus that puts every value under a unifying umbrella. For the
founding fathers, this division was not only desired, but was to be protected through checks and
balances so as to prevent majority tyranny. Maybe this freedom is what sets us apart from Platos
one-dimensional, regimented, state-controlled, force-fed lifestyle: "Justice is practiced only
under compulsion, as someone else's good - not our own (Republic, Book 2, line 360c). That we
can voice our distinct opinions without accruing the wrath of the state is the best way to ensure a
good life in a political community. Some may even go on to argue that nothing else, but this
freedom, is the path to true virtue.
The concept of moral virtue is often non-transcendental and mostly dependent on the
political time and space that we live in. Our ethical convictions are shaped by our generational
practices. For example, the ancient Greek scholars valued strength, valor, and intelligence as the
basis of human dignity. To them, the purpose of being human was realized only through the
expression of rational thought or logos through public deliberations in political assemblies.
The love of money was not subordinated to the desire for social status; they were alike
secondary to the quest for office, for power and for glory (Primacy of Politics in Classical
Sayan 3

Greece, 267). However these very men of virtue engaged in a very public life of homosexuality
and what will today be termed as pedophilia. Even though these were acceptable norms in their
societies, do these appalling acts negate their wisdom and virtue by todays moral standards?
And so does this prove that moral virtue is incapable of transcending the judgment of time?
To solidify this argument, we can look at Aristotles Politics. Aristotle believes that
the identity of a city rests in its constitution. He divides this constitution in six broad categories
of which three are just and three are unjust: For sometimes people aim to change the established
constitution to one of another kind- for example, from democracy to oligarchy, or from oligarchy
to democracy, or from these to polity or aristocracy, or the latter into the former (Politics, Book
V, Chapter 1). When a single person rules, a constitution is a monarchy if the ruler is good and a
tyranny if the ruler is bad. When a small elite rules, a constitution is an aristocracy if the rulers
are good and an oligarchy if the rulers are bad. When the masses rule, a constitution is a polity if
they rule well and a democracy if they rule badly. For us, who value representative democracy
above all else this categorization of democracy as an illegitimate form of governance comes as a
shock. After all, we have in the past taken up arms to protect and spread this very democracy to
the far corners of the globe, in our just crusade against dictators, tyrants and various oppressive
regimes. Is democracy essential for happiness? Or is it a degenerate populist movement? Again,
the meaning of virtue is stuck in sands of time.
Citizenship in Aristotles state is highly valued and given to only those male
members who actively engage in government and hold public offices: This inseparable bond
formed between the citizen and a city-state is necessary to lead a good life. He further believes
that we can only fully realize our rationality and humanity as citizens of state, and so he
Sayan 4

concludes that fully realized humans are, by necessity, political animals. This creates a dilemma
as Aristotle also notoriously defends the institution of slavery: The problem of natural rulers and
natural subjects and whether their virtue is the same or different (Politics, Book1, Chapter 13).
He attributes menial labors like farming and craftworks to noncitizens and slaves who, he
believes, can never achieve the political ranks of citizens. This is a view shared by Plato himself:
The desires of the worthless many are controlled by the desires and knowledge of the decent
few (Republic, Book 4, line 431d) .He is keen to attribute merit as the only measuring stick for
success but seems unconcerned that the rich have much greater opportunities for achieving this
merit and that noncitizens, women, and slaves have no opportunity at all. According to both
Aristotle and Plato, these people do not possess the wisdom for self-determination and should
only try to attain maximum pleasure through what they are subjected to do: It is evident
therefore, that both must share in virtue, but that there are clear differences in their virtue
(Politics, Book 1, Chapter 13); Thus, they are condemned to the lowest rung of the social ladder
from where there is no respite, no escape. Even Woodruff gives examples of Greek mythological
heroes such as Hector and Achilles to show how the Greeks feared the violation of natural order:
Violating the natural order is the proud heart of irreverence (Ancient Greece: the way of being
human, 86). It sounds very familiar to our societys vicious cycle of foster-cares and underfunded public schools which condemn kids to an instantaneous life of failure. For us, who value
equality and liberty so much, how can we accept a political society as just when it takes away the
opportunity of good-life from a considerable portion of its members? How then, are Aristotles
citizens morally virtuous when they are subjugating their own kind? Or is freedom simply a
constraint of our modern time-frame, only clouding our vision of true moral virtue that
Sayan 5

prevailed in ancient Greece? Which value system is right and which one is wrong?
Augustine would say that brute rationality and reason only led to the decadence of the
once prospering Rome. His answer to virtue will be complete submission and faith to the one
true God. In The City of God, those who still adhered to the dying pagan faith were quick to
blame the unpatriotic Christians for the destitute state of Rome. The Pagans labeled Christians
as weak because they desired to serve God instead of the state and advocated forgiveness toward
enemies. To the pagans, Constantines one true Christian God had failed to protect Rome.
Augustine refutes these claims by simply stating that Rome endured for many centuries because
it was the will of the true God the Romans were virtuous, and were rewarded by God: The
good things which occurred on account of Christ, resulting in their being alive due to the respect
given to Christ, they do not impute to our Christ but to their own fate ( City of God, Book 1,
Chapter 1). When the Romans became a disgrace, God had forsaken them: The first human
beings, having become evil in secret, openly fell into disobedience (City of God, Book XIV,
Chapter 13). Also according to Woodruff, even the Greeks needed pagan Gods to understand
their own humanity. Like when Croesus was saved by Apollo from burning at the hands of the
great Cyrus: So Croesus was saved, and in the experience he recovered an understanding of his
own humanity (Ancient Greece: the way of being human, 82). Is it so fragile that we need to
express reverence in ceremonies to contemplate our own soul? And since there is no universal
form of worship and ceremony, does our blind reverences to different deities lead to a neverending conflict?
When Pope Urban II was declaring a Holy Crusade against paganism, Islam and
Judaism in all corners of the globe, most segments of the Christian world were very supportive
Sayan 6

of this conquest. This is very similar to an entirely different concept during the turn of the 19th
century, which Rudyard Kipling pointed out as the White Mans Burden mentality during the
occupation of Philippines to justify colonialism and imperialism- where most colonialists
staunchly believed that it was their inherent duty to spread the ideals of enlightenment among the
savage brutes and thus doing them a huge favor. We have seen time and again how blind faith
and submission have altered the entire course of human history. The 20th century gave us the
Holocaust- a prime example of how easily normal people can discard their conscience and
engage in acts of unimaginable sadistic savagery when supported by an industrialized killingmachine state. At home, for the vigilante mobs who were lynching hundreds of black men at
the mere suspicion of miscegenation, almost all believed that were fighting for a righteous cause,
just like the KKK in Birth of a Nation. Most would not doubt for a second that the faith and
sanctity of their cause would provide them a place in the kingdom of heaven. Most conflicts
from the crusades to the expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq are rooted in religion. Thus, like
pure rational discourses of the Greeks, Augustines pure devotion and veneration seem flawed.
This leads us back to the question of majority tyranny and the failure of Plato and
Aristotles models of a virtuous state with virtuous people. In Book 10 of Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle admits that people are unlikely to be naturally virtuous, so the state is responsible for
establishing laws to ensure that the young are educated in the right way and that adults do not
become bad. In the absence of good laws, people must take responsibility for their children and
friends. Does this signify the non-conformist ideal that virtue is simply a tool of the powers that
be, tweaked and contorted with changing times and perceptions? Doesnt it strengthen the
argument that virtue is just used to create moralistic categories to segregate different classes, like

Sayan 7
the farmers and laborers in Platos Republic?
Finally, going back to the story in Apology, Socrates quest to validate the oracle of
Delphi led him to realize that the so-called wise-men from all sections of society were more
ignorant than he was. Socrates wisdom is deeply humbling, as it casts all pretensions to human
knowledge into question. Contrary to Platos expectations, excess of wisdom turns out to reside in a
humble acknowledgment of ignorance: This man among you, mortals, is wisest who, like Socrates,
understands that his wisdom is worthless (Apology, 150). In line with this, and the entire argument of
the paper, Rahe also interprets that the modern notion of liberty, freedom and other virtuous dispositions
are merely illusions and our way of life is really determined by the current socio-political system in place .

Search for vague definitions of the ultimate good, or happiness, is like searching for needles in a
haystack.

Bibliography :
1) Rahe, Paul. The Primacy of Politics in Classical Greece. American Historical Review 89
(April 1984) : 265 - 293
2) Woodruff, Paul. Ancient Greece The Way of Being Human. Reverence: Renewing a
Forgotten Virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.,2001
3) Hesiod. Works and Days. Readings in Classical Political Thought. Ed. Peter J. Steinberger.
Indianapolis: Hackett Inc., 2000
4) Plato. Apology. Readings in Classical Political Thought. Ed. Peter J. Steinberger.
Indianapolis: Hackett Inc., 2000
5) Plato. Republic. Readings in Classical Political Thought. Ed. Peter J. Steinberger.
Indianapolis: Hackett Inc., 2000

6) Aristotle Politics. Readings in Classical Political Thought. Ed. Peter J. Steinberger.

Indianapolis: Hackett Inc., 2000
7) Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics. Readings in Classical Political Thought. Ed. Peter J.
Steinberger. Indianapolis: Hackett Inc., 2000
8) Confucius Analects.
http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.html