I would like to explore a question that sits at the intersection of ethics and political philosophy: can an action remain morally valid if it also functions as a strategy for gaining or maintaining power? Throughout history, many actions have had mixed motivations, combining genuine concern for justice or social good with practical interests and political objectives. This raises the question of whether the presence of a strategic purpose necessarily undermines the moral value of an action.
On the other hand, one could argue that moral actions often require power, organization, and strategy in order to produce meaningful change. If a person or group acts to promote a moral cause while also seeking influence, does that make the action less ethical, or is it simply an acknowledgment of how social and political realities work? I am interested in reading different perspectives on whether morality and power are fundamentally opposed or whether they can coexist.
Good question. I dont know the answer. The nearest I can get is that authority is sometimes needed on society, a degree of ambition can be consistent with virtue and tyranny is ultimately corrosive of human flourishing. Aristotle explores all these themes in his Ethics and in Politics -
“Man is a political animal”
“But where there is excess and defect, there is also an intermediate; now men desire honour both more than they should and less; therefore it is possible also to do so as one should; at all events this is the state of character that is praised, being an unnamed mean in respect of honour.”
“The deviation from kingship is tyranny, for while both are monarchical, they differ most because the tyrant looks to what is advantageous for himself and the king to what is advantageous for the ruled.” — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Book VIII)"
The real question is whether you intend to participate in your discussion or abandon it, like you did with other discussions that you started
But to the topic, I would pose the question more broadly: does self-interest undermine the moral value of an action?
First, we should be careful to differentiate between moral action, moral motivation, and moral ends. An action that is aimed at moral ends must be morally motivated – otherwise, the ends are not actually moral, even if they have a side effect of bringing about moral good. If an action is motivated by entirely non-moral considerations, such as self-interest, then the moral good that comes about as a result is not tainted by this circumstance, but the action itself is not moral – per stipulation.
But what if an action is motivated both by moral considerations and by self-interest? Let us set aside the question of sincerity and assume, for the sake of an argument, that both motivations are genuine. Again, the moral value of the ends is independent of how the ends came about. The lives of children saved from a burning orphanage are no less valuable if they are saved by a vain caretaker with dreams of getting famous. But how is the moral value of the action affected by the presence of self-interest?
Here I think it is more useful to talk of desert. One who performs a moral action selflessly is seen as more deserving than one who performs the same action while also intending to benefit from it.
One needs to be aware of one the main key splits that the scientific community has labeled as being fundamental to a question like this. Cui Bono which is latin for who benefits? There is a difference between manufactured morals and natural morals. These concepts can overlap, but it usually deals with manufactured morality.
To answer the authors question, Anything that is manufactured can still maintain moral acceptance when done properly.
This is a very interesting topic! In practice, we sometimes see people who rise to power with the goal of changing social laws for others, rather than for their own benefit. Such people can exist because we can put ideals above our own needs—that’s our capacity. But what happens next? This person is then replaced by someone whose personal interests are much stronger than their desire to help others. Currently, the latter are the majority, while the former are an extremely rare exception. Therefore, if we consider today’s reality, we cannot rely on the idea that power upholds morality. As a rule, power will primarily support the desire to retain power. Individual unique individuals should be considered separately, as random phenomena.
