One of the methods of direct determination of human actions is normative regulation, in which the needs of people living together in society and the need to coordinate their mass actions are recorded in general rules of behavior, instructions, and assessments. Morality is one of the main types of normative regulation (Banks, 2016). The relationship between politics and morality is decisively influenced by the nature of society and the dominant sociocultural environment. Western culture, especially with the accumulation of the potential of individualism and dynamism, is characterized by an increase in the delineation of the spheres of politics and morality, their interaction as different forms of consciousness and activity. This paper discussed the nature of morality policy making as a popular tool amongst certain political factions, as well as its ethically flawed outcomes.
The relationship between politics and morality is one of the eternal problems. The politicians are led by the implementation of state tasks in the interests of society as a whole. In this regard, they have special means of coercion at their disposal and can use them to their advantage and to the detriment of many people. Consequently, there is a constant concern that politics, with its ends and means, fits into the framework of existing ideas about good and evil. This is only one side of the relationship between politics and morality. In turn, morality can approach politics with an expectation that it cannot justify (Banks, 2016). Attempts to politically seek the implementation of certain moral ideas or claims can also lead to a dangerous perversion of politics. Therefore, in modern conditions, the problems of compatibility of moral ideas to political actions, the issues of the ratio of ends and means in politics, and the limits of permissible violence are of particular importance.
In morality policy making, two main positions, the unity of morality and politics and the division of the boundaries of the politically significant issues, argue, converge and diverge. The solution to the question of the relationship between ends and means is inextricably linked with the problem of the separation of morality and politics (Banks, 2016). This allows one to get rid of moral norms and prohibitions when choosing ways to achieve political goals. Sometimes, the main thing in politics is the achievement of the goal, even if the methods are unfair and immoral. Fixed goals may be achieved by any effective means, and the means used to lose their meaning in the process of justifying goals.
The political parties in the United States are preoccupied with morality policy. It requires a debate in which one party uses moral arguments to support its viewpoint. A particular policy is a morality policy when judgments rely on ethics and intuition rather than rationale. However, it is dangerous to follow only intuition since such an approach can lead to a partial understanding of the problem. In a situation of choice, many politicians make a worthy decision, strive to do good, and fight evil. However, the arguments for a moral decision and the means of its implementation are not so simple and obvious (Banks, 2016). The unambiguousness of decisions can avenge itself with a cruel paradox of intentions and results, ends and means, hiding one of the existing difficulties of moral choice, inconsistency of decisions, and the consequences.
One of the examples of the morality policy is the death penalty since its prohibition affirms the value of human life. However, in such cases, morality policy often turns into ethical self-confidence, a kind of romantic conviction that no special knowledge and skills are needed for a morally positive choice, but good intentions and good feelings are self-sufficient. Such moral issues need public participation since moral policy must take into account the views of the majority of people (Banks, 2016). Of course, not all criminal justice policies are expressive, but punishment policies often involve rhetoric engendered by moral panic. It serves to shift policy from rational, calculating models of policy-making to the expressive forms of policy.
That is why morality policy making often leads to ethically flawed outcomes. The moral assessment of activity in a situation of choice is not always identical with the utilitarian efficiency of a person’s actions. An objective feature of the moral choice of a person is the possibility and necessity for every person to have at least common everyday ideas about what is good and what is bad. The specific circumstances of modern morality policy making especially vividly show the alternativeness of the situation of moral choice. Its complexity lies in the ambiguity of life paths and also in the fact that these paths are contradictory themselves. In other words, the crossroad is not only a clash of goals but the means and consequences of their use. The alternatives and scale of choice in the modern era put forward an increased requirement for the political parties to develop the ability to make an optimal moral decision and its implementation. Therefore, politicians need to be able to choose the best option for a path.
Reference
Banks, C. (2016). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.