There is no absolute good, nor absolute evil in this world.
The moment we realize this truth, we grow one step closer to becoming true adults. After all, the world is not a black-and-white film; it is a complex canvas where tens of thousands of different colored desires are tangled and intertwined.
It is entirely natural for interests to collide. If so, the task of a politician or a state becomes clear. Instead of leaving these conflicts neglected, should they not step in like a judge—handing out appropriate regulations and fair compensations to harmonize the situation? "The art of mediation": filling the void for one side when they suffer a loss, and forcing them to meet in the middle when conflict arises. Is this not the very reason modern democracy exists, and the ultimate power of the system?
That sounds correct. In fact, that very "mediation" is precisely what current governments and politicians stay up all night doing. Why then did Aristides, who remained just his entire life, choose to slice private and public morality apart like a knife through a radish, rather than relying on such a beautiful process of harmonization? It was not because these politicians were ignorant of the sophisticated method of mediation. It was because the act of mediation itself inherently possesses a cold-blooded structure that can only function by betraying one’s personal, clean conscience (private morality).
Mediation is Not a Magic Trick That Satisfies Everyone
When we think of mediation, we often imagine a happy ending where everyone slaps their knees in awe, much like King Solomon’s legendary judgment. In reality, however, mediation is never beautiful. It is closer to "a process that leaves everyone slightly dissatisfied."
Suppose a trash landfill, which is absolutely necessary for a region, is to be built. From a private standpoint, the residents opposing the landfill to protect their living conditions are 100% in the right. Conversely, the government’s position—which must secure the landfill for the survival of the entire city—is also right. Standing between these parallel lines, the mediator waves cards of financial compensation and legal regulation to coax a compromise.
Ultimately, the landfill is built, and the residents receive their compensation. On the surface, it looks like a successful mediation, but the residents’ home turf has been scarred, and the government has expended a massive budget. It is a bittersweet compromise where neither side is fully satisfied. Here, what the mediator (the politician) did was not an act of virtue; rather, they forcibly "shaved away" the interests of both sides to make them fit. In the realm of personal relationships, forcing someone to shave away their share and bullying them into a compromise is no different from being a thug—yet in the public sphere, we call this "excellent coordination."
From Whose Pocket Does the Offered Compensation Come?
An even more ruthless fact is that the resources used for that "appropriate compensation" do not simply fall from the sky.
If the state subsidizes logistical costs to donate overproduced goods, that money comes from the taxes of other workers who have absolutely nothing to do with those products. To compensate the vested interests who suffer an unfair loss, the state must empty someone else’s pockets or restrict another person’s freedom.
In the end, a chain reaction occurs where an innocent party, Person C, is forced to bear the burden just to mediate between Person A and Person B. Because the world’s resources are finite, a public mercy (compensation) bestowed upon one person is always built upon a public violence (regulation and taxation) inflicted upon another. This is the very reason why a perfect mediation that encompasses all of humanity is impossible.
The Hands of the Mediator Are Inevitably Stained
Most decisively, to make a mediation successful, politicians must do things they would never dream of doing in their private lives.
They must secretly propose backroom deals ("If you concede on this, I’ll take care of your other business rights next time"), sometimes use the greater good as a pretext to corner and pressure a faction via public opinion, and mix in timely lies or political theater.
A moral perfectionist, who stubbornly holds onto the private benchmarks of honesty, transparency, and unconditional goodwill, cannot endure this muddy process of coordination. Clinging to the mindset of "Because I am a good person, I will resolve this using only beautiful methods until the very end," they are highly likely to smash the board entirely, driving the whole community into an even greater catastrophe.
A Lonely Morality That Endures Cold-Bloodedness
Ultimately, the "coordination through compensation and regulation" we speak of is the very essence and crystallization of public morality. It is by no means a beautiful play on words; it is a real-world battlefield where blood, money, and desires splatter.
This is precisely why Aristides separated the two worlds of morality. To become a mediator in the public sphere is a declaration that one is willing to willingly shoulder the agony of becoming a villain in the private sphere or forcibly inflicting losses on someone.
True public morality does not lie in keeping one’s own hands clean. Even if one’s conscience is torn to shreds and one faces personal condemnation, true public morality is the lonely sense of responsibility to hold the cold blade of compensation and regulation, dragging this world of flawed human beings forward—even if only by a single centimeter. That is why we can never abandon this cruel virtue named mediation, even while we refuse to believe in utopia.
Leave a Reply