Public morality, in the end, is inherently subjective.
It is thoroughly bound to the era and shifts constantly with changing circumstances. Whether "growth" comes before "distribution," or "individual liberty" comes before "collective equality"—there is no single, objective answer upon which all of humanity can agree.
At this juncture, a terrifying question rears its head: Does this mean it is truly acceptable to infringe upon someone’s very real, concrete private interests in the name of a subjective "public morality" that possesses no definitive answer? Are we saying that because the state desires it, or because the greater good demands it, an individual should shut their mouth and be sacrificed?
To get straight to the point: it is absolutely not acceptable. When the logic that "individuals may be slightly sacrificed for the whole" hurtles forward without brakes, humanity confronts the worst monsters in its history—fascism and dictatorship. Encroachment upon the private sphere executed under the banner of the public interest is by no means something to be taken for granted; it inherently carries the danger of mutating into legalized violence at any given moment.
The Theater of Democracy: Disguising Subjectivity as Objectivity
To control this highly perilous subjectivity of values, modern society introduced a democratic process: elections and voting. Since 100% objective justice does not exist, the next best alternative is to gather the subjective views of the members and put them to a vote.
The system reaches a tentative conclusion, deciding that "this is the public value our society has agreed upon for now," and moves forward by treating that consensus as temporary "objectivity." We do not choose a path because a definitive answer exists; rather, we choose via majority rule simply because society must move forward.
Consequently, the public morality championed by politicians is like a precarious mirage that can be flipped at any moment depending on the public opinion of the era. This is precisely why it is commonplace for yesterday’s justice to become today’s injustice, and yesterday’s regulation to become today’s compensation.
The Constitution: The Ultimate Barricade
The most decisive difference between modern times and the ancient Athens where Aristides lived is the existence of an "ultimate barricade" designed to shield individual rights. This is the realm of "fundamental rights" (human rights and the freedom of property rights) guaranteed by the constitution.
Modern democracy does not look the other way and allow individuals to be trampled upon just because it serves the public good. Even if a trash landfill must be built for the sake of a city (public morality), it is impossible to forcibly seize a resident’s private land like a thug. This is because the constitution explicitly states: "The restriction of property rights due to public necessity must be accompanied by the payment of just compensation."
In other words, modern mediation is not about the "annihilation" of private interests in the name of public morality. It is a grueling process of persuasion aimed at placing certain "restrictions" on those rights within the strict boundaries permitted by law, while paying a fair price.
Not Because It Is Acceptance, But Because It Demands Constant Suspicion
Despite all of this, the boundary lines remain perpetually blurry. When a state collects more taxes for welfare, or binds an area under development restrictions for the environment, it is ultimately a heartbreaking infringement on private interests for someone involved.
Therefore, politics is fundamentally a desperate struggle to prove "legitimacy." Leaders must continuously persuade the public. If they fail to prove to the citizens why this proposed mediation is worth partially restricting their private interests, the citizens will drag them down from the throne at the next election.
The real reason Aristides urged us to separate public morality from private morality was not to say, "Public morality is unconditionally right, so individuals must shut up and obey." On the contrary, it was a chilling warning to recognize clearly that the public sphere is a cold-blooded arena—one that is highly subjective, dangerous, and inevitably demands someone’s sacrifice.
The infringement of individual rights under the name of the public interest is never naturally "acceptable." This is why we must constantly monitor and suspect whether the goodwill and public morality spoken of by a leader is truly a mediation for everyone, or merely another mask for violence. That is the eternal destiny that must be shoulders by citizens living within the imperfect system called democracy.
Leave a Reply