In the study of normative ethics, there is a division between objective and subjective norms. First, ethics is a branch of philosophy, and ethics as a study distinguishes what is good and what is bad in the decision and thought processes we have to take. A norm is a rule or law which we use to make a decision. Norms can be objective, meaning that they consider our needs together with the needs of the community around us, and as such they do not change. That is why it is objective as it does not focus only on our subjective needs. Subjective ethics considers the ‘me, myself and I’, independent of the actual objective truth or the needs of other people in the community surrounding me. Objective ethics include those based on Divine Law theory (e.g. the Ten Commandments for Jews, Christians and Muslims), those based on the power of reason, so-called natural law theory giving rise to natural rights, those based on the duty theories of Kant and those based on the virtue ethics of Aristotle.
Subjective ethics deals with the immediate needs of the ‘I’ or a group of people and is not built on a norm or rule that is fixed but on one that can change according to situations. These include consequentialism, the end justifies the means, utilitarianism which can take several forms. The most useful is the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mills, which in effect states that one should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people which number can change from time to time independent of the objectivity of the issue. Finally, one can add the existentialism of Sartre which norm would be that existence of man and what he/she does precedes his/her essence, that is his/her nature of man. I teach my students to pick a norm and stick to it. Nobody fails for the personal choices they make which they need to rationally follow to their consequent ends to be true to the norm. I fail students that choose objective norms and apply subjective consequential approaches and vice-versa because everyone should have the power of their convictions. This is not to say that objective ethics does not recognize the subjective circumstances in determining the guilt for the act but it does not change the nature of the objective norm. This may all seem very confusing but there is a logic here that cannot be ignored. There has to be the discipline of convictions of the norms we follow.
There is then the ethics of Joseph Muscat where essentially there is no norm and no power of conviction. With Joseph Muscat there is the ‘I’ the ‘I’ and the further ‘I’. He prevaricates precariously between objective and subjective ethics depending on the audience and depending on his immediate needs of political expedience. His norm does not exist. He says things one day then changes them another day depending on what he means to achieve at the moment. He is against gay marriage then in favour, against abortion then in favour of regular embryo freezing which is analogous, against corruption in words then in favour by his deeds. He is a veritable moving target in ethics, someone we would often refer to as a person with no backbone!
It is important that as we all choose to build the future we want for our country to help shape our destinies, to build a community based on the good of my fulfilment and the fulfilment of others around us, we consider what type of leadership we need for this country. The catch phrase is a leadership that considers the common good. What is this common good we hear so much about? Is it the considerations of the majority public interest of a country which can subjectively change from moment to moment or is it the singling out of political principles which objectively lead the whole community forward? Make no mistake that the correct way forward is the latter one. The common good consists of a number of principles which we can also call virtues that lead the whole country forward. They do not change with a majority, but by following them, one can move ahead with a life built on virtuous fulfilment. Principles such as the Prudence of reason, the virtue of Justice, the Courage to do good (fortitude), the Self-control to avoid evil (temperance) and several other lesser but also important virtues, can lead the nation to move forward as a whole on the main aspects of economy, social justice and environmental stewardship.
We cannot disassociate and fragment into the multifaceted interests of persons who seek only hedonist pleasure as their reasons for survival. Nor must we fuel the fire of those who do not have the courage to do good and on the issue of self-control in yielding power. We have had a Labour government over the last four years that has failed on the major issues of virtue. It has failed the test of prudent rational virtue, of justice, of fortitude and of temperance, as we see unfolding before us the gross corruption at the highest level of government often exposed through foreign information such as the Panama Papers. Exposed through the government’s own FIAU report on rampant corruption at the Prime Minister’s secretariat, a report which is kept secret and never acted upon, a report which never led to the Police and the Prime Minister to take action on the people around him rendering himself compliant, co-responsible and involved in a situation which he was responsibly bound to act on. As there are serious allegations on Joseph Muscat’s family’s involvement in the Panama Papers saga, as Labour’s electoral spin machine works against what is obviously the manifest truth of the filthy corruption at the highest level of government, we have to ask ourselves one question and one question alone. Is this what we want for our dear country? Is this what our parents, family and educators taught us? Will this make us happy?
Aristotle questioned and answered this query over a lifetime. His answer was unqualified condemnation of this government’s nonchalant, corrupt, and self-satisfying behaviour. What makes you happy in life is to seek what is good, to seek habitual virtue in all we do. His first rule of reason for personal life was to seek to do good and avoid evil. This also applied to politics. His second golden rule was to do to others as we want others to do to us! Today we see a situation where there is one law for common people and another law for the untouchable people at the very top! The law is not equal and does not protect everyone! There is no equity. So dear friends I advise you to follow Aristotle’s advice when choosing the next government. Choose one which is consistent in seeking the common good, in seeking justice against evil, in the courage to fight the corrupt, in being able to control itself in the power it yields in a rationality versed towards seeking the common good. For those of an evangelical bent like me, there is the added guidance of a line in scripture that captivates this moment. Seek first the true things that are good and the rest will be given to you as well.
Seek a government that is the antithesis of Joseph Muscat and his bunch of corrupt cronies. Forza Nazzjonali made up of the PN and PD represents such a force. At the end of this election, either Labour will govern or it will be the PN/PD force together. Only one of these alternatives with the largest number of votes will have a majority to govern this country for the next five years. You, on the other hand have the ethical task to make the choice of which political grouping this government will be made! The answer to your own personal conscience of who to vote for will ultimately also reflect on who you yourselves really are!
[email protected]