Political Integrity

My central question is 'Machiavelli's question': 'Are deceit and violence necessary qualities -even virtues - in the politician?' The claim that politics requires deceit and violence has a long history which stretches as far back as Plato's Republic, in which Socrates defends the noble lie as necessary for the flourishing of the state. It has also been widely discussed by modern philosophers including Michael Walzer, Martin Hollis, and Bernard Williams. Against this background, I have two aims both of which will (I hope) provide a distinctive contribution to the debate. First, I will not focus on specific acts of deceit and violence in political contexts, but will instead examine wider questions of moral character: what kinds of people are suited to politics and what effect will the pursuit of political ends have on their character? This will situate questions of political integrity within the context of virtue ethics rather than within utilitarian or kantian conceptions of morality. Second, I will exemplify these questions of character through philosophical discussion of literary texts including: Graham Greene's
'The Quiet American'; John Le Carre's 'The Perfect Spy'; and Herman Melville's 'Billy Budd'. The first of these suggests that moral goodness is dangerous in politics. The second suggests that political effectiveness requires the sacrifice of personal integrity; while the third holds out a more optimistic possibility- the possibility that integrity is compatible with political responsibility. I hope to show both that a virtue ethic approach can illuminate questions of politics (something that
is often denied), and also that the examination of literary texts is important for our understanding of moral evil. The thought that lies behind this last claim is that modern moral and political philosophy focus almost exclusively on goodness and justice (respectively). If, however, we wish to understand evil, we will find the resources of literature philosophically illuminating.