Help Needed on a School Assignment - Shakespeare, Politics, and Nobility

[ASOAK7]

Hello all. I have a school assignment that I am working on that requires me to pose some questions related to a certain work or theme my class has looked at over the course of the semester and dialogue with those who respond. I landed on Shakespeare's Coriolanus. In Coriolanus, Shakespeare explores the nature of a politician's nobility in the characters of Coriolanus and Menenius and considers the relationship between the "nobility" or morality of the politician-as-individual and the politician-as-representative. In light of this discussion and the current election season, I would like to pose three questions and would appreciate your feedback:

- Is there such a thing as a politician’s “morality” or “nobility” that is different from the standard by which common men are supposed to live, meaning should a politician make certain choices and cross certain lines that the common man cannot if it is for the sake of the “greater good”?

If no, why not?

If yes, what are some examples in which the morality of the politician and the morality of the common man differ?​

- Should a politician’s decisions in office be determined by his own personal moral convictions or by the will expressed by those he represents?

- When faced with tough decisions, should a politician simply choose the lesser of the evils that are before him or be willing to stand by his convictions even if it costs him greatly?

 

[Town Heretic]

Is there such a thing as a politician’s “morality” or “nobility” that is different from the standard by which common men are supposed to live

No. The cornerstone of our notion of a Republic is equality. We are all equal before the law. That means equal in right and responsibility. There is no higher ethic, only ethic. No higher good as an operation of right, only right. The politician isn't chosen to elevate him above the electorate, but as a gesture of confidence in his/her ability to serve the principles of the Republic and the common good.

​

- Should a politician’s decisions in office be determined by his own personal moral convictions or by the will expressed by those he represents?

I'd say a politician should make his character and positions known and then follow through. He can't be a windsock. Neither can he represent the individual will of the collective electorate who promote him into service. So while he should remain true to his word, a politician must also remain true to his convictions, which should be evidenced in his declared intentions. If the people find that sum, in action, unsuitable they can run the rascal out and try the next fellow.

- When faced with tough decisions, should a politician simply choose the lesser of the evils that are before him or be willing to stand by his convictions even if it costs him greatly?

You skewed that question... Most of politics is about negotiated discomfort, though there are issues which by their nature discount much give and take...not many. Accommodation is the meat of the body politic. If a man hasn't the digestion for it he should write op-ed bits instead. If the public doesn't understand that (and these days too many don't appear to) then it's time to spend a bit more on our schools, especially in the area of civics and essential analytical process.

Good luck with your lesson. :e4e:

 

[ASOAK7]

Hey Town Heretic, thanks for taking the time to respond so comprehensively! I'm hoping to post a few additional questions for clarification and further discussion in the next few days (I'm currently swapped with finals) but wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your participation in this in the meantime.

 

[Sealeaf]

As an English lit major who has read every word of Shakespeare, I am compelled to respond. My condolences on having to read Coriolanus. One of the least wonderful of his plays.
Some important things to remember when discussing Shakespeare's political opinions as voiced in his plays. Shakespeare lived in a Police State. Freedom of speech was not a legal principle. Common people such as he had very few, "rights". If he offended the Queen or her government he faced prison time, if he was lucky. The main defense he had was being below notice. Important, powerful, people could not be seem as being offended by anything so common as a mere Play.

As to actual morality in political life, the question of rulers being bound by the same rules as those they ruled was an active question then. It remains an active question now as well. It probably always will be. Those in power frequently find themselves wanting to do what would be just plain wrong and excusing it by being in power, supported by the majority, or by their version of Holy Writ. In this regard the most important moral principal is, "What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander."

 

[Bradley D]

- Is there such a thing as a politician’s “morality” or “nobility” that is different from the standard by which common men are supposed to live, meaning should a politician make certain choices and cross certain lines that the common man cannot if it is for the sake of the “greater good”?

The "Greater good" falls under a "Utilitarian" philosophy" in which "the rightness or wrongness of an action should be judged by its consequences. The goal of utilitarian ethics is to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number." Many believe this also includes that lying is alright as long as it brings about what some believe is the greater good.

As a Christian I do not believe in such a philosophy.

 

[Sealeaf]

Brad makes a solid point. The most common excuse for special rules for those in power is indeed utilitarianism. This is commonly expressed as, "The ends justify the means."
This is a great Lie. It is the means that we were willing to use that will justify what we were trying to do. An example: The Spanish inquisition, was it good or bad? It's stated ends were to purify the faith in Spain and save the souls of those who lived under Spanish rule. Its hard to fault those goals. Its the means that were used that got them in trouble. If they had done it without inflicting pain, or imprisonment or death history would not condemn them. If the tools of the "inquisition" had been charity, preaching, respectful one to one conversation, we would not even know about it. It might not have been effective but it would have done no harm. As it is the inquisition did great harm to many people and to the faith it was trying to protect.

 

[eider]

- Is there such a thing as a politician’s “morality” or “nobility” that is different from the standard by which common men are supposed to live, meaning should a politician make certain choices and cross certain lines that the common man cannot if it is for the sake of the “greater good”?

If no, why not?

If yes, what are some examples in which the morality of the politician and the morality of the common man differ?​

- Should a politician’s decisions in office be determined by his own personal moral convictions or by the will expressed by those he represents?

- When faced with tough decisions, should a politician simply choose the lesser of the evils that are before him or be willing to stand by his convictions even if it costs him greatly?

Hi....
I cannot better any of the previous posts....
As an extra 'angle', could you look for evidence that Shakespeare did recognise that all people think that they are good, regardless of their actions and pasts?
For example.... The murdering gangster's last words before execution, 'this is what you get for tryin' to help people!' (out of D Carnegie's How to win friends). If you combine this condition with 'power corrupts' you get the: Corrupt Leader who can do no wrong condition!
Shakespeare was spot on for such stuff, and maybe he shows this ....? It's important because it dictates how stable societies might be built....?

 

[fzappa13]

Noblesse oblige is a noble concept seldom embraced by those so blessed.