“You must realize this: that a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which give men a reputation for virtue, because in order to maintain his state he is often forced to act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, of religion” (75). This contentious line, written by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince, serves as an impeccable illustration of the points that I wish to make. As we all know, The Prince draws on some extremely delicate themes regarding morality and its diverse understandings. Though we have thoroughly debated the precise definition of morality, I think we can come to an agreement that in its simplest form, morality refers to one’s understanding of doing the “right thing”. With that being said, it must be assumed that this notion of the “right thing” may vary between individuals, which adds an inevitable sense of subjectivity to the word. These unique understandings of morality are constructed from a number of personal influences such as religion, culture, and family values, just to name a few. With this broad outline of morality in place, and with an understanding of Machiavelli’s intricate teachings, I would like to introduce an idea which I refer to as “situational morality”
I like to consider myself a morally righteous individual; that is, I put forth an effort to avoid wrongdoings such as lying, stealing, cheating etc. With that being said, I am currently in the process of pursuing law school to become an attorney. I am fully aware that in this profession, the necessity to purposefully withhold information or even blatantly lie is often present. So in accordance with this moral conundrum, I present this question: Is it possible to acknowledge that certain situations require a unique moral code that is specific to that state of affairs? To elaborate, I will utilize the situation of Machiavelli. The Prince expands on Machiavelli’s views of how a leader should act in order to preserve the well-being of the state. He proclaims “…he (the prince) must not flinch from being blamed for vices which are necessary for safeguarding the state” (66). The morality that Machiavelli portrays in The Prince fits into the professional obligation that one acquires when they take that specific role. I correlate this obligation to that of an attorney; though their required actions may often cross personal-moral boundaries, they understand that their responsibility belongs to the well-being of their client. In short, the specific circumstance determines the moral code that one must follow in order to meet their professional requirements, hence the term situational morality.
I believe that it is possible for an individual to follow two moral codes; one that is fitting of their personal life, and one that is fitting of their professional commitments. I understand that this idea will be highly contested, but it is my personal outlook on morality. It is important to acknowledge that politicians and attorneys are not the only individuals who may be required to shift their moral standpoints when entering a professional environment. Doctors, policemen, judges and many others may initiate this necessary alteration, but it does not mean that they are immoral humans. Let it be clear that I am not attempting to justify all of the teachings of Machiavelli. I wish rather to illuminate my comprehension of the broad idea of situational morality.
Morality and Politics 
Very nicely articulated. I like the idea you introduced on situational morality. Furthermore, I think the way you tied Machiavelli’s teaching in with a personal issue was spot on. I mostly relate to your post because I was also planning to become an attorney up until recently. You are correct, this profession at one point or another will require a degree of lying that most normally try to avoid in their every day life. Winning, which often calls for a fair amount of deceit, is all that matters in this particular field of work. I am driven on my religious beliefs and faith, and this does not condone even a white lie. Therefore, my own personal moral compass based on my beliefs and faith have ultimately convinced me to pursue other professional avenues. I certainly think some people could live by two moral codes, but which one is the “right” code? Which encourages an individual to practice the “right” doings and act the “right” way? Personally, I don’t believe that an individual person could call themselves morally just if they defy what most would consider “doing the right thing” and living by a totally different standard in their professional life than they do in their personal life. To be clear- I mean absolutely no disrespect by that statement, either. This leads back to the thoughts in class last Tuesday about morality being subjective. While I find situational immoral, others find totally acceptable and justified. It is all in the eyes/mind of the beholder. This post certainly got me thinking! Great job, and best of luck to your future career in law! 🙂
Situational morality. Interesting. I like this point of view and it is a valuable concept. On your post you mention two types of situations: personal and professional. I would argue that in order to establish a theory such as situational morality many more situations must be added to the thought process to strength the validity of the theory. From all of what I heard at lecture Tuesday night regarding the ‘morality’ options this is the most thought provoking. Additionally I would like to point out that not all law profession require you to abandon your ‘”moral righteousness”. If your morality whatever that may be could be compromised because of your profession I think that’s a bunch a b.s. There are opportunities for lawyers in all fields and many of them focus on protecting their moral beliefs and those of others. I stand behind your theory of situational morality and believe there is more to be considered with that, however I do not support the use of oh well I’m a lawyer or ect. Whatever and therefore I am able to operate with two or more morality standards so please excuse me? I mean come on. Believe in what you believe in and fight for it. That’s when you get into the Antigone again. Being an animal rights lawyer or fighting for humanitarian causes may not pay, but could provide a ‘situation’ where you are able to maintain your “moral righteousness”. This to me is much more money v.s. morality and to abandon morals for money, prestige or perceived success is certainly can’t be excused by a ‘situation’. Antigone followed her morals to her death and without excuse. Machiavelli, well, i would think he is with you on this concept, do what’s right even if it’s wrong – because you know …. It’s just the um … Situation. Not my vibe.
I appreciate your feedback! Always like to hear constructive criticism. With that being said, I fear that you may have misinterpreted my point, or perhaps I should have clarified. I certainly didn’t mean to say that EVERY attorney has to sacrifice their moral righteousness in order to practice; obviously there are many types of lawyers who do not deal directly with the lives of individuals. I am currently interning for a criminal lawyer, so I guess my mind went straight to criminal defense law.
I respect your take on this topic, but we may just think a little differently. If I happen to become a criminal attorney, I believe that the decisions that I make within my profession do not completely define me as a person, because I understand that I have different obligations at work than I do at home, That is essentially my point.
Thanks for reading! 🙂
This post really hit home for me, specifically because of the way you explain “situational morality.” Personally, I would like to pursue a career in law as well, and with that my family jokes that I have no morals. This idea of morality has so many viewpoints and stances one could take. Because morality comes into question so frequently, could it be argued that one is a moral person even if they don’t do moral actions? Morality is subjective, as well as situational, but that really only works if we believe that morality is an over arching universal code. What is moral to some, might be immoral to others. I think situational morality is the phrase that might make sense to explain morality to many without imposing on their fundamental beliefs; also, morality doesn’t necessarily need to mean it is the “right” thing either. As we further our thoughts on the subject of morality throughout this course, I think it will be interesting for you to look back at this post and see if this is still what you believe come December.
I personally think that you did a great job at what your personal understanding of morality. I can definitely agree that morality is situational because from my cultural background there are certain morals that you have to live by. My parents are old school, traditional Mexican parents and they have a completely different moral understanding than many Americanized parents. However, with our Christian religion and our Mexican culture we have morals that we live by, Yet, not everyone will have my morals because we grew up in a different home with a different background. I think that morality exists in what we believe is morally correct. What or who has the correct morals? No one because as you stated we all have a different understanding of what our morals are. I am with you on wanting to pursue a career in law, and I have seen it first hand that attorneys have a clash with their profession and personal belief on morals. Having to defend someone that has either broken the law for a good reason like feeding their family or committed a terrible crime you are defending them. I’m not saying that you will be either type of attorney, of course they are examples and you might not agree that breaking the law is justified but that is another discussion. I am just saying your will be hired to help them to the best to your ability and you might have to go against your moral beliefs in order to protect this person. Overall I can agree with you on how your outlook of morality may come in conflict with your future career option.
I wish you the best of luck in your journey to becoming a criminal defense lawyer, maybe you can do it in a way that does not compromise your personal morals. Just because something has been done a certain way does not mean that it will always have to be done that way. Maya Angelou says, “Do the best you can until you know better…then when you know better…do better.” Morals refer to our understanding of what is right or wrong not to our ability to compromise them when certain situations are difficult. I know what you mean though if only change were that easy.
Situation morality, a pretty interesting concept and one that I agree with to a point. I do agree that there is a professional code of moral standards, a personal code of moral standards but I also believe that their is a society code of moral standards. When I say society’s code of morals I mean things that you personally would not do but things others would do that wouldn’t make you look at them like they are less or deem them immoral. Great examples of this would be legalizing pot or same sex marriages. Personally I am not a person who wants to smoke pot but if my neighbors wants to smoke pot I wouldn’t think less of him for doing it – I would not say he was an immoral person. Or same sex marriages again, it isn’t my cup of tea but for John and Jim or Sally and Suzzie if that’s their brand of tea, in my opinion drink up! Even exotic dancers, people claim being a dancer is immoral, I say everyone has to make a living but my personal morals would never allow me to be one. But because my personal or professional moral code does not allow for me to engage in a behavior it does not mean that I would deem another person who is capable of engaging in the same behavior as immoral.
I think you did a wonderful job of explaining situational morality. I am personally very torn with whether or not there is such a thing as situational morality or if morality is absolute. What you have explained makes perfect sense, but can’t help but think that if we change our morals in relation to the situation, then they aren’t really our morals. To me, morals are ideas that hold true throughout our lives even when we are engaged in tough situations. When we are put in a situation where our personal morals will be potentially compromised, that is when we see what our true morals actually are. On one hand, I sincerely believe in absolute morality, but on the other, I understand that in reality we need people with a more situational outlook on morality to be effective politicians and lawyers. I am not totally committed to either idea, so I appreciate you bringing more light to the nuances of situational morality.
This post was very well-written and I enjoyed reading it. I, too, am in the process of applying to law schools and have always had an interest in criminal defense. However, I am not sure I can get on board with the idea of situational morality.
It would be easier for everyone to compartmentalize our morality to specific situations as to then alleviate guilt. To coincide with your examples, let’s say a lawyer withholds evidence from a case to ensure his or her client’s victory. The lawyer will have peace of mind if he or she can simply dump that moral decision into the category of his or her job. But the process of categorizing this decision as acceptable under a different moral code is, as Walzer explains to us, a justification or an excuse.
As mentioned in a previous comment, in the cases of marriage equality or recreational drug use, while one’s personal moral code may not permit him or herself to take part in these activities, another portion of his or her moral code may support freedom of choice for others. To link to this example, a lawyer may (and probably doesn’t…) agree that his client committed murder. However, the lawyer can think that no matter what crimes a person has committed, he or she is still entitled to due process and a fair trial. The attorney can then rightfully do everything in his or her power to ensure his or her client does receive competent legal representation, due process, and as fair of a trial as possible. This would be an example of a lawyer still following his or her moral code even while put in a professional situation.
Perhaps I am too optimistic, or even naive, but I believe regardless of one’s profession, one should be able to follow his or her moral code; we should not have to create multiple codes to be able to stay true to our morality.
Great Post! However, I completely agree with the comment haleyschryver wrote. I’m torn whether “situational morality” is truly a way of living. Can we truly separate the moral code we have in our profession and the one we have in our personal life? Are we truly that well at compartmentalizing, especially when it has to do with our morals? I mean, in a profession, your hours and days are spent in majority working. It becomes your way of living and it has to have an effect on your personal morals. Unless, everyday, of the rest of your life is spent with guilt over the choices you wouldn’t have made in your profession, if you had a true say in it. You will eventually have to give up some of your morals to be able to live with yourself. But then again, maybe not. It depends on the set of morals you start with. Morality is definitely tricky.
You made a great case and approaching issues with a situational morality proves to be reasonable within the dynamics of high profile professional fields where this approach can be implemented. Approaching situations with a distinctive moral code proves to be good in certain professional areas. Like you mentioned, various occupations require that their employees commit to their professional duties even though personal moral conflicting notions might occur. Personally, when it comes to a particular career such as the legal career, you endure a rigorous process where you are very well acknowledged that your profession requires you to commit X, Y, and Z; because at the end of the day, it is your duty to commit and represent those individuals. For example, like many defense attorneys they are very well advised and acknowledged that this career requires you to fully represent these individuals regardless of their heinous offense. Therefore, you are not put against your will or surprised by the fact that you might and will commit an immoral action that will conflict with your moral code.
Personally, if you are hired to do something and you are well aware of what you are getting yourself into, it is your responsibility to reassure yourself that you are willing to challenge and even break your moral code. Overall, from a professional stance, this situational morality is a reasonable approach and is often exercised.
Machiavelli is not a god. His view on morality was to betray your mother. Anyone following his way will not find their way back from the quagmire of of an imorality hell.
And no. I am not saying morality is black and white. It is not.
Unlike Machiavelli people must fear God. In that fear it may be necessary to be evil. But only as a choice between greater evil and lesser evil. Machiavelli’s selfishness and greed must be seen for what it is. Immorality.