- Differences between morality and virtue
The same word can mean both a morality principle and a virtue but there is a fundamental difference between the two. If we take the example of generosity, the idea is a moral concept, which means that we have a duty to give back a part of what we received. On the other hand, the effort of giving this generosity is the concern of virtues and it is not limited to give money but also give time, comfort and shared competences.
However, morality can lead decision-makers to act in a way that could have terrible consequences. For example, in the name of democracy, human rights and liberty, the president of a country could choose to lead his nation to war, and all this for a transcendental idea. In this case, the government is the decision-maker, but the people of the country have to follow it and share the same values, like for example Churchill during the Second World War, who said that the only thing he could offer his nation was " blood, labour, sweat and tears".
And when these political figures lack this moral principal called courage, like Daladier in France during the Second World War, it allow people like Hitler to come to power.
As Machiavelli argues in “The Prince”, “it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good” (----), which means that a Prince could be required to lie, betray, steal or kill if it secures the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people as Utilitarianism explains it. And Gluksmann (2004) explains it in very comprehensible way, by saying that there are no fair wars but only necessary ones. It is also showing courage to be able to lead a nation to war to preserve rights, when everybody knows the tragical consequences it can have.
Nevertheless, a society which advocates selfishness, violence, cruelty, murder, hatred or deception would not have a great chance to survive. Another good example to illustrate this is the International Criminal Court which was created by many world politicians on behalf of a certain morality which has emerged from the respect and dignity of humanity.
II- The rights and wrongs of expecting a higher standard of morality from public figures
A) The four cardinal virtues
Several concrete and hypothetic cases could be examine in this part, in relation to the different virtues, to try to highlight the extent to which we should expect a higher standard of morality from someone involved in public affairs.
First of all, as mentioned before, the courage is one of the field for which we would expect a higher standard of morality from public figures. Concerning politicians, a capacity to resist the pressures they are subjected to, and in particular from lobbies groups is required, but they need sometimes to assume the unpopular decisions they take, like for instance Tony Blair's decision to join the USA for the Iraq war. However a lot of courage was also required from the soldiers during the Normandy landing.
Secondly, the prudence which mostly apply to intellectuals such as journalists or even political figures, who are required to be very careful when they transmit information. This will allow people to make their own judgement of a situation and not to be influenced by a certain view of presenting the facts. This has for example created problems in France, when a journalist announced on the eight o'clock news, that the president of a political party, Alain Juppé, was sentenced to imprisonment and five year of inegibility whereas the final verdict has not been delivered yet.
Then, the temperance which is in fact the self-control. To illustrate this virtue, the case of sport seems to be relevant but it can also apply to stars such as actors or singers. When people are watching a football match or a film, they tend to identify with the players or the hero. And which image would they give children or teenagers if they can't control themselves and behave aggressively toward the referee or toward a journalist who try to make an interview. This case has already happened many times with for instance Cantona for the football who started to fight with supporter during a football match and with Liam Gallagher, the leader of the band Oasis, for the same reason.
Finally, the justice or fairness. The law, which is created by politicians, has to be the same for everyone and they have to be careful when they write a text, that it respects the moral principals and not benefit only a small part of the population or a personal interest. It is the politicians' role to try to make rules which tends to be fairer and they also have to set the nation a good example. What would people think about a politician who creates laws one day and break it the following day? They would lose their credibility.
B) Some others examples
Concerning fidelity, two cases could be focused on, such as Clinton's one and more recently the David Blunkett's affair. Both of them were scandals, but to what extent should we care about public figures' private life? It is agreed by a significant number of person that private life should be kept private, as long as it doesn't directly affect the ability of the concerned people to lead. However, in Clinton's case, it brought him into troubles during his presidency because some people such as Geisler (1998) believe that "there are no differences between public and private morality, because character doesn't change from one geographic location to another. Your morals don't change when you leave your home and go to your office" (). It did, nevertheless, not stop him from governing the USA.
One the other hand, it is also argued that political figures shouldn't make private morality an electoral issue to try to get an advantage. This was the case of Gary Hart in 1987, who lost the 1988 presidential elections because he was having an extramarital affair, whereas a part of his campaign was based on his views on marital infidelity, which was according to him something intorable.
The recent scandal of David Blunkett's cannot be ignored as it is both a fidelity and abuse of power case. As the Sunday Telegraph highlighted it, he was accused of several allegations such as facilitating the granting of a permanent visa for the nanny of his ex married girlfriend. Another main issue of this case, is that he is suspected to be the father of his ex married girlfriend's two children. The problem here is to know if it is possible to trust a political figure such as an Home Secretary, who abuse from his power to serve his personal interests. People are expecting from these political figures to look after the nation benefits and wonder if they are still reliable when they care more about their own interests.
Concerning the other part of the scandal, it proves that mentality have changed. Eleven years ago, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,Cecil Parkinson's affair made a big scandal and decided him to resign from his job, whereas today, even the Prime Minister Tony Blair supports encourages David Blunkett in the steps he is taking to prove Mrs Quinn children are his sons.
Furthermore, there are significant differences in the perception of morality depending on countries. For example, in France, the deontological code forbid people to talk about politicians' private life. This can explain, how the secret of the French president Mitterand extra marital daughter was kept. It is not considered as important if a political figure is having an affair with someone, but if he takes advantage of his political role to benefit himself, it is considered as a serious fault.
This shows that morality is a personal perception which differs from country or even people.
To illustrate Macchiavelli's concept of morality and the Utilitarians view, the example of the Coventry attack during the Second World War could be taken. Many historian believed that Churchill knew that Coventry was going to be shelled in the night of 14 to 15 november 1940, as the army had succeded in see through the Luftwaffe codes by using very powerful systems of information. However, he decided to choose not to evacuate the city, to prevent the Germans to discover they were able to anticipate their actions. Churchill had to make a choice between killing thousands of people by not saying anything about the attack, or evacuating the city which would have maybe imply more death. He decided to benefit the greatest majority.
Conclusion
To conclude, morality is a crucial issue in everyday life, for politicians as well as for the "stars" or athletes as they have to "set the example". They are considered as "icons" and should be irreproachable as people tend to identify with them.
However, as argued before, they are some field of their life that should be kept private, such as the private life of a politician and even David Beckam's one, as long as they don't use this kinds of argument to increase their popularity. Public figures do also have a right to privacy.
Moreover, some differences have been identified between countries with for example France, which doesn't care about politicians having affairs and Great Britain being very critical toward David Blunkett.
Finally, different standard of morality are expected from public figures according to their level of responsibility and the kind of decisions they have to make.
(about 2001 words)
Bibliography
-
Foggo, D; Hennessy, P; Peston, R, 2004, Blunkett's ex-lover accuses him of fast-tracking visa for her nanny, The Sunday Telegraph, 28 November 2004.
-
Hampsire, S et al, 1978, Public & Private Morality, Cambridge University Press.
-
Harman, G, 1977, The Nature of Morality, Oxford University Press, New York.
-
Parekh, B; Berki, R.N, 1972, The Morality of Politics, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.
-
Geisler, N, 1998, Focus on the family,