It seems such an odd question. Nowadays, when we think of “moral,” we think of “ought,” as in “we ought to do this and not that.” Folks who think or do this are moral, while folks who don’t are immoral. That’s conventional wisdom, though for many it is more conventional than wisdom.

Politics, on the other hand, is about the power to accomplish the goals you want, for yourself and others. In a society where many people live together under a government, unanimous agreement is extremely rare because goals vary; different people want different things. Since politics is the way we broker decisions that affect all of us, being engaged in politics and government is about the only way to achieve certain of our goals.

Political power is the agency we use to achieve what we believe ought to be the rule for everyone; this rule ought to apply to all, and this ought to be the situation for everyone. So there, we’ve found the way that politics and morality are connected.

What tends to be missing from this common-sense approach to politics and morality is precisely the purpose of politics and the purpose of morality. The Declaration of Independence states that all human beings are endowed with unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The purpose of government, then, is to secure these rights with a system of government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thus, the purpose of government is to secure the means for achieving a meaningful and satisfying life for all the citizens of the realm. In short, the purpose is to secure the conditions requisite for the good life.

And yet, the good life is itself a moral matter. Morality is not an inherent trait of the Republican or Democratic or any political party, and deciding not to affiliate with any political party doesn’t make one any more or less moral. What is inherent to political parties are views of the role of government in securing and protecting inalienable rights, and we all know these views differ across political parties.

What needs to be declared, however, by the adherents of the various political views, is precisely what their vision of the “good life” is. If the purpose of politics is to govern our individual and societal lives, and the purpose of government is to secure and protect our fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then surely our politics and our government ought to be informed by both a vision of the good life and the significance of government by the consent of the governed. And the moment we say “ought,” we’ve found ourselves at a place where politics and morality intersect.

To be moral, our politics needs to account for the good life by distinguishing among three elements: the humans who seek to live it, the behaviors that lead to and express it, and the conditions necessary for any and all to achieve it.

These first two elements are a matter of character, and together they constitute an “ethic of character.” I think of character as the peculiar amalgam of beliefs, attitudes, values, and commitments that distinguishes one person from another and that is expressed in behaviors and social roles through one’s personal agency. Character is not innate. Rather, it is formed and achieved by intentional development; it is cultivated by the exercise of rational reflection and judgment and the choice to enact and habituate virtues recognized as demonstrative of the just, the good, the right, the true, and the honorable.

But thinking about these things is one thing. The more important part is embodying them in our demeanor in ways that others can see them.

The vision of the Founders of our republic was that individuals had indefeasible rights that needed to be secured and protected in order that personal freedom and the capacity to achieve a meaningful and happy life could be possible for all. This is why the Preamble to the Constitution declares that one of the purposes of government is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” As Thomas Jefferson said in his second inaugural address: “What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

It is precisely the just and honorable performance of this type of government that politics ought to have in view and strive to achieve, for the flourishing and well-being of all.

Douglas R. Sharp, Ph.D. is a retired Professor of Theology, Religion and Society.

Douglas Sharp