Moral clarity is even more important in political commentary because of the tendency of politicians and political commentators to pull the wools over people’s eyes through prevarications and hollow rationalism
By Sam Amadi
Most of the problems we have in the world today is caused by lack of moral clarity in thinking and acting. Moral clarity is more important than intellectual clarity. But most people have been oriented to disregard morality because it is associated with religion and they have been taught to mostly discount religion as largely irrational. But morality is not wholly subsumed in religion as it is conventionally understand. Morality extends beyond religion as conventionally understood.
So what is the difference between moral and intellectual clarity? They are related in such a way that the difference may not be very clearly perceived. Moral clarity relates to how fundamental moral principles direct thinking and acting. Intellectual clarity relates to how logic and rationality direct thinking and acting.
Moral clarity is primary even in the most technical issues. Take for example something as technical as the amount of pollution that should be allowed from a factory. It is apparently all technical. But wait. Before we can properly think through this we have to settle core moral questions. What do we want to protect? Life or environment or both? What quality of life is minimal for human beings? Should we ask for more prosperity at the detriment of some lives? How valuable is life even without much social goods?
If we proceed first by clarifying the moral questions, we can then settle the technical questions easily and rightly. When the issues are more political and economic, moral clarity becomes even more fundamental. The moral foundation of economic decision making was well clarified by the Swedish Nobel economist, Gunnar Myrdal. She called it the role of values in economic policymaking.
Moral clarity is even more important in political commentary because of the tendency of politicians and political commentators to pull the wools over people’s eyes through prevarications and hollow rationalism, and even appeals to base sentiments.
Let us take the current political crisis in Rivers State. Some want us to see it from the point of loyalty and disloyalty. They argue that Wike did everything to make Sim Governor. Sim knew the conditions and agreed. So he ought to keep calm and not betray the man who did everything right and wrong to make him a Governor. They further argue that Wike needs to be rewarded and somehow entitled to his conquest of Rivers State.
Others argue that Sim is right to rebuff Wike. A man has to be in charge. You cannot give a man power and imprison him in the walls of your own desires and ambitions. There is nothing wrong in the way Sim has treated Wike. Power must be powerful. It is the nature of the game of politics. Those who are more morally inclined in this school of thought argue further that what matters is the interests of Rivers people not Wike. Who is right?
The problem with political commentaries and arguments is that they often mix up consequentialist and deontological reasonings. They also often combine pure hedonism with altruism. If Sim knew that Wike wanted to impose him as a governor for the purpose of using him to continue his control of Rivers finances, should he agree to be imposed as Governor? Should he accept with intention to disappoint him for the greater interest of Rivers people? Should he accept with a view to outsmart Wike and establish his own dynasty, just as Wike did to Amaechi? Is Sim’s action of deliberately betraying his mentor and violating the agreement morally condemnable even if the agreement was morally wrong and against the interests of Rivers people? Shouldn’t we commend Sim for realizing that he should protect the interests of River people and not serve Wike’s selfish interests?
Moral clarity requires us to start from fundamental proposition. Anyone will be wrong for plotting and acting to compromise the integrity of a succeeding government of Rivers State. Also, it is generally wrong to betray benefactors and violate agreements. But if agreement is immoral or illegal then it is right to violate them. No one should be rewarded with ownership of the resources that belong to everyone. Therefore, there is no proper gratitude to a leader for his beneficence that should include giving him access to the resources of the society for his benefits. Again, it is morally wrong to intentionally accept an immoral or illegal agreement only to violate it when you have taken advantage of the agreement.
Therefore, Wike does not deserve any sympathy or support if he insists that Sim should keep “his structure”, when keeping that “structure” means fundamentally hurting the people. Sim is the Governor of Rivers people, not the agent of Wike. All Rivers people should support Sim to succeed in betraying such illegal and immoral’agreement’
Sim does not deserve moral approval for his selfishness in willfully taking advantage of an immoral and illegal agreement to become Governor and turn around to betray it. He ought to have rejected that agreement. Not doing so means he is not a moral champion. His betrayal is morally condemnable, even as we support his actions for the greater good of Rivers people.
Therefore, we can argue that he is an immoral person (or appear to be) who is taking the right action in this particular circumstance.
*Dr. Amadi is a University lecturer and public affairs analyst.