The need for moral structure and restrictions in public life
Plato shows us that real power (and freedom) is based on the true application of one’s will.
(Editor’s Note: This is an updated version of a piece entitled “Morality in Public Life” that was published by BusinessWorld in 2012.)
The problem with writing about morality in public life is that people immediately dismiss it as plain naivety or as an attempt to impose on their freedoms. One saw that in last year’s elections, where the argument “we’re electing leaders and not saints” demanded unquestioned assent from the electorate.
Yet, where are we now? The truth is that to require morality in public life is actually a matter of sheer necessity. We must demand a more moral set of leaders if at least for the sheer practical benefits of doing so.
This is not a radical claim ( at least not in the progressive sense of the word) but rather one born out of sheer experience and reason.
Plato made the same point more than 2,000 years ago in Gorgias: between the superficial and passing rewards of material or popular success and striving to achieve a true morality in one’s life, the latter should be chosen without question. However, even with such a surprising claim, Plato ups the ante even more: that to suffer harm while doing good is far preferable to doing harm in order to achieve material success.
Gorgias is a dialogue Plato has Socrates conduct with three separate individuals: Gorgias himself, who could be considered as today’s equivalent of the TV media personality; Polus is ancient Greece’s version of the activist youth that inevitably loses himself amidst the world’s complexities, and Callicles is the cynical know everything businessman or politician. Plato’s Socrates runs intellectual circles around the three, showing the ill logic of their positions, and how they actually agree with him all along and that they were merely denying or suppressing such agreement.
Plato shows us that real power ( and freedom) is based on the true application of one’s will. However, contrary to what the “anything goes” liberal or secular progressive crowd tells us, this application of will has to do with the employment of reason and one unshackled by personal compulsions. A person cannot be considered free if one is enslaved by desires or passions. And one is free from one’s passions only by sheer order of the mind and the relentless application of selfdiscipline.
The foregoing, it must be emphasized, is a position framed not by a religious or devout Catholic ( which allegedly smart people consider as a stupid thing to be nowadays) but by a philosopher utilizing pure logic born centuries before Christianity. But the consequences and implications of the same are clear, particularly as to how it relates to the present contraception debate or on the alleged equal rights advocacy for same-sex unions (repeatedly denied although such is obviously the case) by the homosexual lobby. While pluralism and tolerance are indeed necessary in a proper functioning society, yet such must be governed by right reason.
And the benefits of Plato’s path can be seen throughout history. David Brooks, writing of US President Abraham Lincoln and his battle with personal demons: “He would, of course, climb out of it. He would come to terms with his weaknesses, control his passions and achieve what we now call maturity. The concept of maturity has undergone several mutations over the course of American history. In Lincoln’s day, to achieve maturity was to succeed in the conquest of the self… He knew he was ferociously ambitious and blessed with superior talents — the sort of person who could easily turn into a dictator or monster.”
“Easily turn into a dictator or monster.” The phrase is chilling when read in relation to a man “blessed with superior talents” but horrifying in the context of an inferior, untalented, or immature person that was handed with the reign of power.
The bright side, as it usually is, lies with our very young. Contrary to their self-indulgent, self- righteous, self- obsessed predecessors, the youth today in their 10’s and teens seems more grounded, disciplined, and more intellectually curious in the honest sort of way.
Matthew Schmitz, writing for “First Things,” puts it this way: “Young people really do desire structure today. Call it ‘rigidity’ if you like, but they have had occasion to learn the value of rules.”
One area that could be examined in relation to societal structures is marriage and for this The Atlantic, reporting on the Allstate/ National Journal Heartland Monitor poll in 2015, found that “the bulk of respondents — 74% overall — thought that marriage was still a meaningful institution” and makes the comforting assertion that while “Millennials don’t quite fit into the same mold as their predecessors, but when it comes to their desire to have stable, long-lasting relationships and families, the generation might prove more traditional than they seem.”
Schmidt’s explanation may be relevant: “Having been raised in a culture of unending pseudo-spontaneity, they have had time to count its costs. They prefer more rigid forms.”
Considering the uncertainties in today’s political scene, for people to now desire structure and stronger institutions could only be a good thing.