When Morality meets reality: Is a moral basis for politics possible?

In this session we will discuss the relationship between morality and reality with a focus on politics.

Questions will include:

Do we believe that the province of morality is more pure, uniform, harmonious and ordered than it actually is? How contingent is our society’s moral system? Does the fluid nature of language and semantics point to a contested and contingent moral system in any given society?

Is it realistic to expect all decisions to follow a moral system?

What are the dangers of different modes of moral action (modes you want to consider: amoral, absolute morality, utilitarian compromise)?

Does everyone have their price? Are there natural limits to the ability of the average human to stay within moral guardrails?

Do our morals expect too much from us when we are under stress?

Are politics and morality mutually exclusive? Is a moral basis for politics possible? Is politics ‘applied morality’?

What mode of moral action do we think nation state politics operates in? What mode do we think nation state politics should operate in?

To what extent should moral criteria have a central role in determining the suitability or otherwise of our political leaders? Why are certain politicians considered objectively worse or better than others?

If politicians can and sometimes should challenge a society’s moral system then what moral system should a politician be subject to or guided by?

Do we expect citizens and politicians to have different virtues? For example: generosity, sincerity, integrity for citizens; and worldliness, flexibility, improvisation, clear-headedness, resoluteness, strategic, and tactical thinking, thrift, being economical with the truth, and a certain ruthlessness for politicians. Can we propose some minimum standards and stretch goals of virtues for politicians?

How clear cut are the differences between private and political morality?

***

PiPs is part of a national movement to encourage people to think about some of the 'big ideas' in life. No expertise necessary, only the desire to do what Wittgenstein described as 'untangling the knots in the way we think about things'.

It is a collective activity, not a debating club.
Everyone attending, and there is often a wide range of people present, is encouraged to listen to and engage with the topic. We hope it is fun and provides plenty of food for thought.
The organisers are trying to find ways to collect money from attendees towards the costs of running the sessions, mostly the costs of using this Meetup site. One of the organisers has something on their phone that can take payments. Suggested amount? Just a few quid now and again for regulars. For anyone turning up for the first time, it's free.

We follow the 'four C's' to manage sessions. These are -

• Caring for others, making space for their contributions
• Collaborating to get a better mutual understanding rather than scoring points
• Critically assessing what we say, clarifying what is meant and asking what reasons support assertions
• Creatively coming up with alternative perspectives, rather than dogmatically sticking to our initial positions