Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Politics and the right wing

18:08 / 17.05.04

OK, maybe this would be better placed in Switchboard? but I will leave it to the all powerful moderators to decide

Basically, I've been musing over this problem in the last few days, partly sparked by recent events, the torture of the prisoners, et al.

What is the distinction between politics and ethics?

OK, I am fairly (ok, ok, extremely) left wing. Socialist, even. When I hear a typical right wing pundit/politician/member of the public talk about something, like, say, the war, or (topically) gay marriage, asylum, the welfare state, or, well, nearly any topic, my reaction isn't 'that's just someone else's perfectly valid point of view'. I just can't sympathise with it at all.

Am I being really ignorant/dumb in this? Does the right wing come to an issue with the same ethical intentions, they're just approaching it another way? Or is there something fundamentally, even ethically, different?

There are some issues where I can see this: for example, Europe. I can even sympathise with some of the anti-euro camp's ideas. Or free trade - which at least has an idealism behind it of equality.

But then on an issue like, for example, asylum, I just don't get it. The idea of being so anti-asylum just speaks to me of thinkly veiled racism, a lack of human sympathy for other people's position in the world, and a whole lot of other stuff. It's, well, antithetical to everything that I think make's up my morality.

So: politics. Does it exist? Is it totally entangled with ethics?
Are there any right wingers out there who can enlighten me on this?

03:11 / 18.05.04

A system of ethics provides rules for behaviour and includes absolutely everything one is morally obligated to do and forbidden from doing. One is forbidden from doing certain things, obligated to do others, and permitted to do others. Ethical rules can obligate both actions and inner states. They can apply to deeds with very little consequence (such as white lies) or very large consequence (such as mass murder). Various ethical theories deal with these questions in different ways. For instance, some claim inner mental states should not be considered morally relevant. Others claim that they are all that is morally relevant.

Politics, however, deals with government. Barbelithers discuss the purpose of government, here. Most people would agree that the government should not punish all immoral activity. If that is so, then it is sufficient to demonstrate a difference between politics and ethics. One of the reasons for this distinction is that the government has authority to do things to you that no individual has. It can, for instance, take away half of your income because it says it needs it for your own good. Another possible reason for the distinction is that the government acts only for the sake of the governed, and, thus, it should act for the sake of the governed. Some people believe this means absolutely everyone within the state. Others say that it should only be most of the people in the state. Some people believe the government should act for the sake of more than just the governed, but also for the sake of all of mankind. Now, when trying to assess the proper role of government, you must necessarily appeal to an ethical theory. Often, you must also appeal to psychological, sociological and historical theories.

06:13 / 18.05.04

If that is so, then it is sufficient to demonstrate a difference between politics and ethics.

Yeah, but I was more getting at *party* politics, and how one's political views are ethicially ingrained. So maybe their not synonyms, and it doesn't fall under the general definition of ethics, but what I'm interested in is how this:

One is forbidden from doing certain things, obligated to do others, and permitted to do others.

equates with a fiercely held belief system such as a person's political leanings.

It's also interesting (to me at least) how it is that if people's politics are shaped by, or their personal reaction to, their ethics, how something reasonably standard, like ethics and morality (we all know it's wrong to kill people) gets skewed and altered into literally endless versions in people's politics.

Thoughts?

sdv (non-human)

11:23 / 18.05.04

A right wing political position - can obviously within it's own ethical and moral perspective be completely 'ethical'. (Though I would argue against such an understanding.) If you are arguing that a right wing position can never be ethically or morally acceptable, then surely that is a different question to suggesting that right wing political positions cannot be ethical.

Right wing political positions have recently tended towards being pragmatic positions - but whilst Rorty for example would probably not argue that he is taking a position for ethical reasons. Others such as Roger Scruton would probably argue that they are in essence being ethical.

I do not think however that you can restrict politics to the party, state and govenmental related issues. The act of walking down the road is in general terms as political an action as you personal political relations.