I’ve been thinking a bit about ethics and democracy lately, and the latest round of pondering was touched off by Jim Lampley’s inaugural broadside over at the HuffPost. I guess the ultimate question is this: what codes of ethics fuel democracy and what kinds are anathema to it?

Whether or not I believe the GOP stole the 2000 and/or 2004 elections – a charge that Lampley takes as a matter of fact – is beside the point. For the record, I’m not sure exactly what happened, but I know our government will remain tainted by suspicion until we undertake an honest investigation to find out. Not only will a significant portion of the public continue to question the legitimacy of this administration (a condition that represents de facto suspicion of our whole system of government itself), but it will also serve as a powerful motivating force for those on the other side who might logically come to believe that the only way to compete on the American political scene is to outcheat the incumbency.

And therein lies the ethical question. 18th Century philosopher Emmanuel Kant is credited with construction of an absolutist code of ethics that instructs us to do the right thing, regardless of the consequences.

1. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
2. “Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.”
3. “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” (Source)

It is not possible to reach legitimately moral ends via the “fight fire with fire” path. Right and wrong exist a priori, independent of outcomes. In short, the means justify the ends and the ends do not justify the means.

The flip side of this coin, in the classical argument, is the situational, or utilitarian code of ethics associated with philosophers like Bentham, Priestly, and, in particular, John Stuart Mill. Mill’s articulation of the “Greatest Happiness Principle” says “that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Source). That is, good and evil are not inherently knowable as a result of some sort of intuitive, absolute canon of right and wrong. How one accomplishes an outcome is beside the point – the ends justify the means, and the object is to effect the right result by hook or by crook.

All of which leads me to wonder about the compatibility of utilitarian ethics with the continued health – nay, the very life – of our democracy. This is a hard question for me, especially, since I am and always have been a utilitarian at heart. But what happens in a society driven by a small core of power elites who are likewise utilitarian in their outlook?

Let’s say a group of people with a good measure of wealth and power look at the state of their society and the character of their opposition and realize that the people on the other side of the aisle represent a clear and present danger to very fabric of the culture. They’re corrupt, incompetent, and/or outright evil, and stopping them and their corrosive agenda is more than just a good idea, it’s imperative to the survival of the nation.

They then realize that playing by the rules is playing into the hands of the opposition. The system is rigged against them and that the only way to save the country is to bend the rules a little. So what do they do?

If they are Kantian, they play by the rules and trust that good acts will reap good rewards. If they are of a more Millian mindset, they understand that good is something you make, not something that happens magically.

You see where this is going, I hope. And if you’re reading it as an anti-GOP screed, go back and start over, because I’m describing a dilemma that can and does present itself to members of all political parties (at least, all parties within hollering distance of actual power). Lampley is justified in sounding the alarm over 2004, I think, but there have been heated charges of election-fixing in the past that implicated Dems, as well (Google “Richard Daley” for more on this).

What happens to a democracy when one or both if leading parties abandon the idea that they must trust the sanctity of the system and honor its outcomes? What happens when all players abandon the charade, take the gloves off, and dive into open, fire-with-fire, take-no-prisoners, scorched-earth utilitarian warfare? Can democracy survive when everybody is willing to throw the canons of Constitution and law under the proverbial bus in order to ensure that “good” triumphs?

In a way, I really hate this question. I’m like the neocons in this one respect – I damned sure do trust myself. I am a utilitarian. If I found myself in power, I’d have a pretty solid idea of who needed promoting, who needed killing, and who needed watching. Of course, I also know that not everybody out there shares my deeply informed faith in my judgment. Which means that I’m either the One Anointed Vessel Of Truth® or that I’m just like a lot of other people. I prefer the former, although I understand that the odds favor the latter.

At its core, I suspect that the single greatest requisite of a healthy democracy is trust. Trust in the system, and as hard as it is to imagine right now, trust in the other guy. And an awareness that you cannot expect trust if you yourself cannot be overtly trustworthy. Call me a dreamer, but I don’t think opposition has to equal hatred. I don’t think debate has to deteriorate into screaming. And I don’t think critical thought has to melt into the poison of cynicism.

I’d like to be more Kantian, in other words. And I’d like to feel safe doing so…..