Morality, philosophy and the health of democracy

Technocratization and the strengthening of legalism are accompanied by the disappearance of debates about the moral dimension of individual public figures’ behavior. The key question regarding, for example, the use of state assets to extend the power of a particular party is not primarily a legal question - although that too is important. It is a question about moral issues. The lack of discussion of individual moral responsibility - not only of party leaders, but also of managers at various levels in state-owned companies, etc. - in the long term is one of the sources of the growing attractiveness of authoritarian attitudes in Western societies.

Moral evaluation of political actions and acts focuses on a question of their compliance with the fiduciary duty that comes with the performance of a public function. Following Rawls, let's imagine that we are behind a "veil of ignorance," i.e. we don't know who we are and what role we play in society. How would we evaluate a given action?

The only two ways to maintain social peace are either a social compact - often expressed in the form of a constitution - or state violence. This is how the difference between a consensus-based democratic system and an oppression-based authoritarian system can be outlined in a nutshell.

A prerequisite for accepting a system is the belief that it is just. State and public authority can make anything it desire legal. However, it cannot make it right. Morality is thus at the heart of maintaining social peace through consensus, not oppression. It protects the many weak from the few strong. The current frictions and authoritarian tendencies and questioning of the essence of the democratic system - from the U.S. to France, from Germany to Poland - are due, among other things, to the fact that a large and growing part of societies have lost or are losing faith in the fairness of the system, equality of opportunity, and so on.

As humans, we instinctively feel that something is good or bad. At the most basic level, this is independent of education, cultural background, etc. The moral challenges we face as humanity have not changed in their nature for 2,500 years.

At the same time, only a few non-lawyers recognize instinctively and correctly whether something is legal or illegal. Over the past 100 years, the number and scope of legal rules has grown almost exponentially. Their complexity and breadth is so great that only specialists know and fully understand the totality of the legal tradition in a given field. Nevertheless, in recent years everyone [in Poland] has become an "expert" and "interpreter" of the Constitution. Legal dispute has replaced ethical discourse.

For a long time, we have been sliding down the slippery slope, summing up questionable behavior in public life with the statement "oh, it's just politics." The knowledge that actions we instinctively judge as wrong are left without consequence, without moral evaluation or at least ostracism, can cause frustration. It is felt throughout the Western world. Even if something can be defended from a legal perspective (is there anything that can't be done with a good legal team?), citizens still feel it is wrong. The end result is negative for all of us. The 20th century showed the consequences of breaking with democracy and truth in favor of authoritarianism and lies. When a system breaks down, no one can escape from the world around them.

We should not lose confidence in our (social and human) ability to make judgments. Of course, it is a challenge to judge emotionally charged topics such as politics. It is difficult to put ourselves behind the "veil of ignorance." Philosophical training is helpful here. The moral dimension of private debates about public life is nothing more than the habit of constantly seeking and asking questions about what we think about a given behavior (not a person!), how we would like to act in a given situation, what attitudes we expect from those active in public life. It is worth considering whether philosophy and ethics should be part of the curriculum of primary and secondary schools. This would be an investment in the long-term health of our democracy.