A wicked problem - Stan Grant on Barnaby Joyce

What to do about Barnaby Joyce is a "wicked problem"; that's what philosophers call a dilemma that is incomplete, contradictory and changing, almost impossible to resolve.

Immanuel Kant is not the first name that springs to mind when thinking of the Deputy Prime Minister, but the enlightenment philosopher may be a better guide to trying to make sense of all of this than the often hyperventilating media.
It revolves around the questions of morality: Who decides and who has the right to impose that on another person.
Kant believed fundamentally that the right came before the good: a moral autonomy.

It is his foundation of justice: Individuals should be free to chart their life course without the imposition of the values of others.

There are some immediate causes for concern: Does my right to do you harm supersede your right to be protected?
Kant had thought of that: To choose my life's course, I must respect the rights and choices of others.
The 20th century philosopher, John Rawls, updated Kant's arguments. To establish the principles that govern our lives, Rawls argued that we should set aside our particular interests, beliefs, ethnicities. In this way we would agree from a position of neutrality.

Will they burn Barnaby at the stake?

Rawls famously called this the "veil of ignorance". He claimed it would create a social contract that would be the most equal.

Who under a veil of ignorance — removing all self-interest — would not agree that private life is exactly that, private.
Kant and Rawls adopt a classically liberal position: that I am the author of my own life.
Harvard University philosopher Michael Sandel in his book Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? writes: "It is precisely because we are free and independent selves that we need a framework of rights that is neutral among ends, that refuses to take sides in moral or religious controversies."
Sandel poses the question: If the state seeks to impose its morality, doesn't that lead to intolerance and coercion? As he says, it raises concerns about "religious fundamentalism past and present — stonings for adultery, mandatory burkas, Salem witch trials and so on".
Well, Barnaby Joyce may feel as if he is about to be burned at the political stake, and it raises questions about the imposition of morality.

Malcolm Turnbull's public vilification of his Deputy Prime Minister and the ministerial ban on sex with staff (so quickly and inelegantly dubbed the "bonking ban") hardly fits with ideas of moral autonomy.

But Mr Turnbull is not thinking about morality, he is thinking about politics.
The polls are already showing that the government is haemorrhaging over this scandal.
This is the problem with philosophy — it imagines a perfect world and that's not the one we live in.

Human nature 'moralistic and judgmental'

There is no veil of ignorance. As a society we make other peoples business our own.
As ethicist and psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, says in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, "human nature is not just intrinsically moral, it is also intrinsically moralistic, critical and judgmental".
Haidt says this morality "binds and blinds". At our worst, he says, "We are indeed selfish hypocrites, so skilled at putting on a show of virtue that we fool even ourselves."

Joyce lost his moral authority

The scandal surrounding Barnaby Joyce's personal life has shattered his mystique and any authority, writes Andrew Probyn.

There are many people — journalists, politicians, the public — writing and speaking critically about Barnaby Joyce whose own lives may not withstand public scrutiny.

But the Deputy Prime Minister's attempts to reclaim his privacy ignores the words of writer Kennan Malik in his book The Quest For A Moral Compass: "Moral thought does not inhabit a sealed-off universe."
Michael Sandel's Harvard course on ethics is hailed as the most popular course in the university's history.
He also believes that separating moral scrutiny from community is impossible, writing: "Deciding important public questions while pretending to a neutrality that cannot be achieved is a recipe for resentment and backlash. A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life."
Barnaby Joyce cannot even take refuge in Immanuel Kant. As Michael Sandel points out, the philosopher who spoke of moral autonomy himself opposed all sex except that in marriage.
Even when casual sex involved mutual satisfaction and consent, Kant wrote it "dishonours the human nature of each other. They make of humanity an instrument for the satisfaction of their lusts and inclinations".
A wicked problem indeed.