Morality in Political Science
Political issues are complex, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make moral judgments on these issues.
I have been fortunate to have been on a campus that has not engaged in anti-semitic demonstrations or attacks regarding the events in Israel. I have been extremely fortunate to have had teachers who don’t engage in anti-semitic rhetoric and other disgusting remarks. But one of the things I’ve been disturbed by is the way teachers and students have gone about trying to avoid making moral judgments about either side of the conflict. Yes, teachers condemn Hamas and their attacks, but when it comes to saying which side is moral, they scatter.
As a political science student, I am fully aware that not everything is how it seems on the surface. Issues are complex and do not always derive themselves from one source. But being a political scientist doesn’t mean you can use it as a card to escape making moral claims. The quote, “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist,” sums up an issue we seem to have in the political science field as well as society as a whole. “This issue is not black and white” is a phrase I hear quite often during this time. But just because an issue is complex does not mean we cannot make value judgments. To me, failure to make moral judgments on important issues seems a great injustice. To give up our ability to determine right from wrong, or good from evil, is wrong.
This issue has weighed heavily on my mind as I have been reading Bloom’s work…
“True openness is the accompaniment of the desire to know, hence of the awareness of ignorance. To deny the possibility of knowing good and bad is to suppress true openness.”
-Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind
No one doubts that the Israeli government is not perfect. No one doubts that decent people are living in Gaza who want a normal life. But what many seem to doubt is that there is a clearly defined victim in this, who has been a victim of hate for centuries. There’s a right side.
I am not here to name and shame certain teachers I may have who do this, but simply to say that I believe what they are doing is wrong. I believe the loss of value judgments in our society has done far more good than harm. As political scientists, we, of course, should continue to look at issues with the idea that there could be more levels to issues than we think, but we should also never shy away from being able to determine what is good and what is evil.
-Jake
Jake D. Kroesen is an undergraduate student at the University of Central Missouri, where he studies Political Science with an emphasis in Foreign Affairs. Jake has contributed writing to his school paper, the Muleskinner, as well as to Lone Conservative and National Review. He is currently a submissions editor at The Vital Center Magazine. @MuggedReality
The Daily Saucer is our place for freelance contributors and editorial staff to offer short takes on the news cycle, quick observations on the issues, and brief thoughts on broader topics. The views offered in this space reflect only the personal views of the authors.
 | A guest post by
|
This is a big reason why I largely eschew the term political scientist and prefer to refer to myself as a political philosopher or political theorist. In my view, there are three branches of political inquiry: normative, prescriptive, and experimental. I dislike that we label the broad field of political inquiry as a "science" because that suggests the field is mainly experimental while the normative and prescriptive aspects are small, cursory sub-fields. That this is the case is part of what leads to the problem you address in this article. The scientific method demands impartiality, but we, as human beings, are part of the inquisition. There is no pure lab for social and political scientific endeavor. We all have biases that cannot be arrested, no matter how hard we try, and, as you point out, we are engaged in a field of study that can and should demand our use of judgement and reason.
“ Yes, teachers condemn Hamas and their attacks, but when it comes to saying which side is moral, they scatter.”
This is so on point. Too many people want to just sit on the sidelines. They’ll criticize our enemies but stop short of saying that America is good. In truth, they feel uncomfortable with the idea that America is good. They are painfully aware of our flawed past, and while we should not seek to hide from that past, it keeps them from fully experiencing a deep love of their homeland. It also keeps them from full-throated support of a righteous cause. Too many people are uncomfortable being earnest and feel more comfortable being halfhearted - they’ll condemn both sides and point out flaws, but they won’t affirmative say that their side is good. That’s sad.