How Ethical is Our Democracy Compared to the Past?

The American democratic system at its inception was considered by many to be either the peak of moral systems or the path to get there. By making the government subservient, and anyone with any ideas to share and vote on them, in its ideal state it presented unprecedented freedom for those involved. However, does that mean that it is actually the most moral political system to exist in human history? To answer this would require a reference to an absolute truth about human nature, which we do not have. However, history and past regimes give us a more objective spectrum to compare our current system to. Using these tools to judge by, I would argue that democracy is the most morally right system in western history due to its adherence to human nature which was denied by the progression of past regimes which used excessive controlling measures in order to keep people in check.

The first thing to establish in order to decide what spot Democracy occupies in virtue or morality is first establish a definition of morals and whether these morals have a system where they progress. The issue with morality is that it is hard to define it without a sense of inherent bias and impossible to prove its existence. Morals as a concept exist, but there is no perfect set of rules widely accepted and proven to be the baseline of morality. These principles are under constant debate, and many parties believe they have the right answer. Utilitarian thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill would advocate what is best for the most people- but then you have to define what is best- whether happiness should be the first priority, freedom, peace, or a combination of a number of other virtues. Others use religion to define morality, using sacred texts such as the Quran or Bible to give distinct answers for what is right and wrong. Even within these many religions, however, there is debate about meaning and interpretation, and with the religious founders long dead or unreachable on Earth there is no way to prove if anyone has it right or not. Yet another view sees morals as a human construct used to further an agenda or as a natural evolution which places humans at their biological peak of social fitness. Instead, our system will be judged based on its predecessors, the works and societies of Western Political thought. Western political thought has evolved over time, so I will first establish the way in which we measure progress morally. As described in Dale Jamison’s article Is There Progress in Morality?,

“Moral progress occurs when a subsequent state of affairs is better than a preceding one, or when right acts become increasingly prevalent.”. (Jamison 318).

This view obviously is contingent upon a knowledge of what is better, or what right acts actually provide. However, I believe the best way to use this formula is to go through important phases of human development and philosophical thought and compare the “progress” between them, leading to our main focus- the current age of democracy. I will do this through discussing some leading text from each time period and constructing what I believe to be the most influential belief and virtue in each of them, and then compare and give ethical and practical benefits to them.

Before people had the ability to write, there was only thoughts and language- as was true for the earliest humans. Because there are no primary sources documenting their moral experience, we have to make assumptions about how their original conception of morals led to more modern beliefs. Some would argue that early hunter -gatherers had no or little concept of morals, and were little more than animals with the abilities to make tools. Although this is partially true, our species has had the capacity for moral thought for 10s of thousands of years, and it is safe to assume that a moral code developed as a result of social evolution at one point. Described in Scott James’ article,

“First, the sorts of adaptive pressures facing early humans would have produced judgments—often situated within emotions—to the effect that others could reasonably disapprove of some bit of conduct, for an early human who cared deeply about how others who shared a particular social standpoint might respond to her action enjoyed the benefits of more cooperative exchanges than those early humans who did not. And this in turn conferred a reproductive advantage on that individual. Second, according to objectivist versions of moral constructivism, facts about how others would respond to one's conduct not only characterize our particular moral sense, but moral facts or truths themselves, because, on the constructivist account, moral facts are determined by, very roughly, the principles that would survive scrutiny from a particular normatively grounded standpoint.” (James)

So, then, our early humans give us a glimpse into what could be the basis of morality, according to James- a natural reaction based on what is best for reproduction. Moral reasoning, however, progresses along with the society creating it. This society was drawn to do compassionate things because of the benefits, and therefore had little virtue for its own sake.

As farming became common and humans entered the bronze age, societies began to shift into a feudalistic system, with small villages, usually under constant warfare. There are many sources of ancient documented history around the world and the ways in which they viewed morality, many of which consisted of a similar set of standards. Most of these early societies used spoken word to express their tradition, usually concerning their religion and mythological heroes. Some examples of this include Homer’s Odyssey, Norse Mythology, and the Tain Bo Culage. The Tain is an epic from pre-Christian Ireland which describes a war over a mythological bull and contains influence from many mythological elements including demigods and fantasy creatures. This spoken tradition is not a direct philosophical expression, but you can extract many of their moral beliefs from the descriptions of life and what they consider virtuous within the text. There is an emphasis on glory in battle, and a winner takes all mentality, one group is not morally wrong for slaughtering or deceiving the other, and cowardice is seen as a cardinal virtue. Most women are essentially property to ruling men, however, the character Medb breaks this assumption, as an important warrior on one side of the conflict. Despite this, there is a moment of compassion which actually ends the events of the story, with the main character demigod Cu Challan, who seems to embody all that is considered morally right in early Irish culture, helping Medb escape after she is defeated at the final battle. This shows how there was a moral sense of compassion even in feudal society, mirroring other texts from this time period, like Achilles' moment of compassion towards Hektor in the Iliad. Similar ideas of this winner takes all mentality were present in most feudal societies, and shaped this period of thought. To generalize, this society viewed honor as the ideal moral good, and did good and compassionate things based on their desire to be remembered by their ancestors in the future.

As empires and more urbanized societies emerged, new moral expectations were placed on the populace, usually based on the works of a philosophical class who would make rules to better govern the entire state. Due to most of the people educated at this time having to be rich and elite, most of these ideas reflect their interest in protecting the system of power in place. One example of this is Confucianism, whose tenets were originally laid out by the Chinese philosopher Confucius during the early Zhou dynasty. These beliefs stressed adherence to tradition, altruism and kindness, staying within your own role, and filial piety. Each reflects a more ingrained society with many living closely together, meaning society benefits more when others are respectful and do what they are told. These ideas, although not directly influential on the western world, are very similar to the enduring traditions present in the greco-roman as well as other successful empires at the time. Before the emergence of later Ancient Greek philosophers, western philosophy had much less influence on actual government systems, and Confucianism is one of the best documented moral codes from this time period. This regime saw adherence to tradition as the ideal moral good, and people were drawn to do good things due to it being what people in the past had done and had been successful.

The roots of the next period of western political thought began with Socrates and his students' writings and influence. These ideas were often never utilized within the regimes of the time, but are worth mentioning, as their influence can be seen in moral theory and religious thought in the future. Many of these texts were written by non-elites who were able to question their governments due to the extension of education. One of the most influential texts for future western empires is Plato’s Republic. Plato was a Greek philosopher during the classical period and near the end of Athenian democracy in Greece. In the Republic, he offered a portrait of an ideal city which reflected the ideal structure of a person, which was utilized to advocate for being just, or moral, for its own sake. However, his ideal city was founded upon lies and social structure, as he banned poets, separated society into 3 classes, and controlled religion in society. The most influential part of this ideal city, however, was it’s monothiestic beliefs in which people were punished for being unjust, as the single God was considered perfect, or as Plato describes, the “form of the good”. Although in Plato’s description, these ideas were used exclusively to control the city and best organize them, Christianity would utilize this idea to organize morality into a set of codes governed by a perfect God. However, it is important to note the lack of Democratic decision making in these ideas, and the delegation of ruling to a single, God sponsored class. Christian empires eventually became the norm, with the Bible and the king providing all the moral leadership in the society. The people were not only subservient to God but also to the government, and were seen as extensions of them. These regimes saw faith as the ideal moral good, and people were drawn to do good things because according to their religion it would be what would make them the happiest.

This system based on Christianity and tyrannical governments remained the main system of western society, with many more works coming out of the tradition along the way. However, none constituted a change so drastic as the ideas of the enlightenment. The enlightenment presented freedom as the new most important virtue within society, and along with it democracy on a grander scale than ever before. These ideas are what lead us to our society today, and constitute nearly the end of the western moral progression. With the ideas of Locke, Rousseau, and many others, the Christian tradition was shifted away from kings and empires, instead advocating for a government under the people instead of above it. In this society, freedom is the most important virtue, and people are driven to do what is best for their own benefit.

With this progression described, finding a moral basis to judge our current system off of using western philosophy is much easier. Although it does not answer the question exactly what the end goal is, by seeing the ways in which morals have changed and evolved over time, we have a spectrum of past ideas to judge our own. Although obviously a simplification, and elements of all of these concepts is present in each different society, the most important virtue of human societies that have been overall presented in their texts and policy can be seen progressing as such; benefit, honor, tradition, faith, freedom. These are not necessarily what was practiced consistently, but the ethical code of each of these systems as seen through their philosophical writings reflects each trait. What I see from this is a move towards more control under greater powers, finally ending in a reverberation of freedom, with each person supposedly able to decide their own path. Under an ethical standpoint, then, American democracy could be considered the least moral, as under our own ethical language value is placed on your own desires and beliefs, while older regimes had more important obligations. However, the basis of Western Philosophy came from the discussion of the political sciences- Plato saw justice as following your own role- or encouraging others to follow their own rule. Then, the argument could be made that the best way for someone to find their place in society and do good things for their own good is to be given the option to do exactly that, with as little obligation to other purposes as possible. In my view, throughout history as humans have become more habitualized in society, the most successful ones have utilized different virtues to keep people from maintaining the political structure, and in the western tradition this manifested as the Christian divine right tradition of tyrants. This was the most morally oppressive regime constructed in Western Philosophy, as it viewed an omnipotent God as the administrator of the government's will. The enlightenment flipped this on its head, getting rid of all obligation to a higher authority and instead recentering on the individual. Democracy provided a framework for self expression, allowing a person a regulated choice in each of their actions. This means democracy is the closest regime type to our ancient origins where ideas of morality first began- but that’s why it is the morally superior option. The ability to choose to do the right thing is the basis of ethics and this ability was oppressed during past regimes, contrary to the nature of morality itself. Allowing for choice or at least striving to allow for choice is most in line with human nature, making democracy the closest option to moral purity western philosophy has produced.