A state that violates human rights with impunity just outside its borders will sooner or later do so within. A minister who plays with the safety of non-Italian children could sooner or later do so with the children of his fellow countrymen, perhaps because they are political adversaries.
The defendant Matteo Salvini is innocent until the end of the trial, like any other Italian citizen. And the migrants of the Open Arms were not armed, therefore they did not constitute a threat to the homeland. And rescue at sea is both an ancestral moral law and a principle of international law.
The same goes for many of the human rights that are trampled upon if unarmed people, weakened by a dangerous journey, are left on an uncomfortable vessel for many days. And the fact that these people chose to make the journey, or that they were without legal title to enter, makes little difference.
An Italian citizen who finds himself in danger abroad, by his own choice and in violation of some laws of that state, is nevertheless saved – by the foreign state, often, and by Italian embassies, sometimes. That said, the alleged autonomy of politics with respect to moral ideals and the administration of justice invoked by many authoritative journalists and less authoritative members of the government remains to be discussed.
Hit the opponent
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Two things can be said. One can say that politics is autonomous with respect to morality because moral rules cannot apply in it. As an authoritative commentator of this newspaper saidpolitics is “blood and shit”.
Applied to our case, this implies that Italian sovereignty and interests can and must prevail over any moral law, including that which dictates helping the defenseless. It also means that in politics all or almost all means to harm the adversary are legitimate.
In this sense, if politics is independent from morality, one cannot blame those exponents of the 5 Star Movement who in 2019 voted against the authorization to proceed against Salvini in the analogous case of the Diciotti ship and just a year later changed their minds.
Evidently, during that period Salvini became an adversary. It happens. Nor can we blame the exponents of the left who want to exploit the objective difficulty of an adversary who, in addition to the definitive conviction for defamation aggravated by racial hatred (in 2014), could now be convicted of kidnapping and refusal to perform an official duty. This also happens.
Politics and morals
And it is not clear why judges should not have political interests and passions and pursue them lucidly and without paying too much attention to the means. Should we want judges, when they decide to enter the political arena, to follow rules of impartiality that can only be moral, before being sanctioned by legal norms? And why should they do so if no moral rule applies in politics? In short, if one is a political realist, one should also accept the brutality that follows.
But perhaps politics should be autonomous from morality for moral reasons. For example, because only a politics that does not forcefully impose controversial moral ideas, not accepted by the majority of citizens, can perform the moral function of ensuring peaceful and respectful coexistence between different people: only a politics that uses force to ensure respect and freedom is justified and is not mere tyranny. And even the third-party nature of judges falls within this scope of considerations: only a third-party judge can ensure that justice is not revenge, disguised political struggle, tyranny, only a third-party judge can ensure fair, impartial, even lenient justice, when necessary. And only a judge not subservient to the executive power can guarantee against tyranny. Often those who want to completely separate politics from morality dream of subjugating justice and morality to politics.
But if the autonomy of politics is in a moral framework, politics cannot violate uncontroversial moral ideals. If politics is not against morality, no one can justify exposing minors (who were on the Open Arms) to life-threatening risks. Nor can misleading analogies such as the one that considers migrants as armed invaders be justified. The liberal autonomy of politics is a moral ideal.
The monopoly of force of each government is justified because the system of states as a whole guarantees first and foremost the human rights of all – citizens and non-citizens. A state that violates human rights with impunity just outside its borders will sooner or later do so within its borders. A minister who plays with the safety of non-Italian children could sooner or later do so with the children of his compatriots, perhaps because they are political adversaries. There are every reason – prudential and moral – for such things to never happen again.
© Reproduction reserved
How does the trial of Matteo Salvini illustrate the conflict between political interests and moral obligations in the context of human rights?
The Blurred Lines between Politics and Morality: A Threat to Human Rights
The recent trial of Matteo Salvini, Italy’s former Interior Minister, has sparked a heated debate about the relationship between politics and morality. Salvini is accused of kidnapping and refusal to perform an official duty for blocking the Open Arms ship, carrying migrants, from docking in Italy. While the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, the incident raises important questions about the morality of political actions and the consequences of violating human rights.
The Moral Imperative of Rescue at Sea
Rescue at sea is not only an ancestral moral law but also a principle of international law. Leaving people, including children, to suffer on an uncomfortable vessel for days without assistance is a violation of their human rights. The fact that these individuals may not have had the legal right to enter Italy does not negate their right to be treated with dignity and respect. It is worth noting that Italian citizens who find themselves in danger abroad, even if they have violated laws, are often rescued by foreign states or Italian embassies.
The Autonomy of Politics and Morality
Some argue that politics is autonomous with respect to morality, suggesting that moral rules do not apply in politics. This perspective implies that Italian sovereignty and interests can and must prevail over any moral law, including the duty to help the defenseless. However, this approach can lead to a “might is right” mentality, where all means are justified to harm political adversaries.
The Consequences of Unchecked Politics
If politics is truly autonomous from morality, then it is difficult to blame those who prioritize political interests over moral principles. This can result in a never-ending cycle of political vendettas and exploitation, where the ends justify the means. In this scenario, judges may be seen as mere pawns in a political game, rather than impartial arbiters of justice.
Reconciling Politics and Morality
Alternatively, politics can be autonomous from morality for moral reasons. A politics that does not impose controversial moral ideas on its citizens can ensure peaceful coexistence and respect for differences. In this framework, judges must remain impartial and independent to prevent justice from becoming revenge or disguised political struggle.
The Threat to Human Rights
If politics is not bound by uncontroversial moral ideals, it can lead to violations of human rights, including the right to life and dignity. Exposing minors to life-threatening risks, as in the case of the Open Arms, cannot be justified. Neither can misleading analogies be used to demonize vulnerable individuals, such as migrants, and justify inhumane treatment.
The Liberal Autonomy and the Rule of Law
Ultimately, the liberal autonomy of politics must be balanced with the rule of law and respect for human rights. This means that political actions must be guided by moral principles, rather than purely by political interests. Only then can we ensure that justice is fair, impartial, and protective of the most vulnerable members of society.
the Salvini trial is a stark reminder of the importance of reconciling politics and morality. By upholding moral principles and respecting human rights, we can prevent the erosion of our values and the perpetuation of injustices. As we navigate the complex landscape of politics and morality, we must remain vigilant in our pursuit of justice, equality, and human dignity.
– What are the implications of separating politics from morality in the context of political leadership?
The Blurred Lines between Politics and Morals: A Trial of Principles
Hit the Opponent
The recent trial of Matteo Salvini, the former Italian Minister of the Interior, has sparked a heated debate about the intersection of politics and morals. The charges against Salvini stem from his decision to block the arrival of the Open Arms ship, carrying hundreds of migrants, in Italian ports, citing concerns over national security and sovereignty. While Salvini’s supporters argue that he was acting in the best interests of Italy, his detractors argue that he violated human rights and international law. This incident raises important questions about the role of morals in politics and whether political leaders should be held accountable for their actions.
Politics and Morals
One perspective is that politics is autonomous from morality, where the ends justify the means, and politicians must do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. This view suggests that political leaders should not be bound by moral principles or laws when making decisions, as they are serving the interests of their constituents. However, this approach can lead to a slippery slope, where politicians prioritize their own interests over the well-being of others, and human rights are trampled upon.
On the other hand, politics can be autonomous from morality for moral reasons. A politics that respects the diversity of opinions and moral beliefs among citizens can ensure peaceful coexistence and fair governance. In this context, politicians and judges must be impartial and uphold moral principles, such as respect for human rights, to prevent tyranny and ensure that justice is served.
How Does the Trial of Matteo Salvini Illustrate the Conflict between Political Interests and Moral Obligations in the Context of Human Rights?
The Salvini trial highlights the tension between political interests and moral obligations in the context of human rights. On one hand, Salvini’s actions were motivated by a desire to protect Italian sovereignty and security, which some argue justifies any means necessary to achieve these goals. On the other hand, his actions resulted in the violation of human rights, including the right to life, liberty, and security, which are fundamental principles of international law.
This trial raises important questions about the role of political leaders in upholding human rights and moral principles. Should politicians be held accountable for their actions, even if they claim to be acting in the best interests of their country? Or should they be given a free pass, citing the need to prioritize national security and sovereignty?
The answer to these questions lies in the principle of moral obligation. Politicians, as public servants, have a moral duty to uphold human rights and respect the dignity of all individuals, regardless of their nationality, race, or religion. This moral obligation is rooted in international law and is essential for maintaining peaceful coexistence and promoting human well-being.
the Salvini trial serves as a stark reminder of the importance of upholding moral principles in politics. Politicians must recognize that their actions have consequences, not only for their own citizens but also for the global community. By prioritizing human rights and moral obligations, political leaders can ensure that their actions serve the greater good, rather than perpetuating a cycle of violence and exploitation. Ultimately, it is up to us, as citizens, to demand that our leaders uphold these principles and hold them accountable when they fail to do so.
