February 6, 2012
Ask Fr. Spitzer
What’s Your Take of Sanford’s Mistake?
Q: Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina made headlines for his extramarital affair in Argentina. Whenever there’s a story like this, some people say it has no impact in terms of the person’s ability to lead, and other people say it makes a huge impact. Who’s right? Should it make a difference or shouldn’t it?
A: The kind of judgment you reach all depends on what ethical criteria you choose. If you’re a utilitarian, you look at everything in terms of benefits versus harm. You weigh consequences and costs. So looking at Governor Sanford’s situation, you’d ask, “What were the consequences?” And you might reach the astounding conclusion that, as far as his political duties and competencies are concerned, his affair was an absolutely irrelevant act. I think that's one of the problems with a purely utilitarian view of ethics.
Alternatively, if you’re a virtue ethicist, you’d reach a totally different conclusion. You’d say, “Wait a minute now. Ethics depends on the cultivation of virtues, and one of the key virtues – a cardinal virtue – is justice. And the injustice done to the wife of that man is just phenomenal. The injustice done to his kids with this scandal and all the publicity is incredible. Leaving aside the question of whether it mattered that he was out of the state for days, it’s still a fact that he humiliated his staff, his party, and the people who put their trust in him."
If you’re saying you’re remorseful and want to change, but you’re doing it out of fear and just to survive, that won’t work in the long run. Fear doesn’t keep a person out of trouble for very long, and the same behaviors that got you into trouble will tend to repeat themselves. To really change, you have to want to be virtuous. |
You’d also ask, “Does this kind of an offense open a window on his character?” For a virtue ethicist, the answer is, “Absolutely.” It’s a problem, and it raises the question, “What does this person hold about justice in general when he can violate it so thoroughly?”
Now of course, you always have to account for the problem of human weakness. A person can really believe in virtue but lack the discipline to follow his own conscience. If you do something wrong out of weakness, and you learn from it and try to reengage your own character, that’s a stepping stone to repentance and getting back on the road to virtue. And it seems Sanford is trying to do this.
So while virtue ethicists would agree that this doesn’t reflect well on a person’s character, they would add, “Let’s see what the person does in response.” Does he show real remorse and a real desire to reconnect with his conscience? If he does, a conversion can take place, and he can become a better, more virtuous person because of the mistake.
So there’s hope, but it depends on your motivation. If you’re saying you’re remorseful and want to change, but you’re doing it out of fear and just to survive, that won’t work in the long run. Fear doesn’t keep a person out of trouble for very long, and the same behaviors that got you into trouble will tend to repeat themselves. To really change, you have to want to be virtuous. You have to want to listen to your conscience. That’s true for virtue-based ethics, and it’s also true for principle-based ethics. Both are rooted in conscience, and only conscience will work in the long run, not fear.
The other thing you can do in response to a lapse – which Sanford hasn’t done – is to try to justify your injustice. A virtue ethicist or a principle ethicist would consider that very bad, because it leads to the degeneration of conscience. Self-justification becomes habitual, and the person sinks lower and lower because he stops paying any attention at all to his conscience. When you see a leader do that, watch out! That’s often a sign that the worst is yet to come.
Return to the Home
Last changed: Jul 15 2009 at 10:35 AM