The main problem posed by Coady in “Messy Morality and the Art of the Possible” is that the immoral acts of politicians are more or less condoned. His argument for the opposite stance aside, I think both sides of the argument assumes a narrow sighted perspective. In fact, I don’t really think that there’s such a problem to begin with.
The two things Coady mentions to be problematic for morality is the compromising of moral’s dominance and coherence, depending on which perspective you view the situation from, I think there’s actually no compromise in those two qualities.
The fault of the argument is that he makes a distinction from a normal person and a politician, yet failed to make the distinction that they have different priorities and perspectives. He assumes that an immoral act committed by a politician is condoned because of some special allowance by morality (which in turn damages dominance and coherence). He doesn’t take into account the possibility that under morality’s dominance and coherence, an act that is not allowed for a normal person would be for a politician.
Iin the article, the “immoral” acts mentioned are viewed from the perspective of judging a single series of acts, that is, it’s never viewed from the big picture.
The fact is, regardless of the morality or immorality of a single act, the ultimate deciding factor is its implications in the grand scheme of things. That is, even if we were to assume that we give some freedom to bypass intuitive morality to politicians, if in the big picture, the politician intends to induce harm, then that act will ultimately be immoral.
Conversely, even if a politician commits some single act that is deemed immoral, we would NOT give him the benefit of the doubt if his ultimate goal was not working towards the good.
“Dominance is challenged by the idea that the political imperatives are not part of morality but are, nonetheless, rational demands which match or take priority over the moral requirements.” But the thing is, political imperatives are only rational because in the big picture they make moral sense (a political measure universally considered to be intended to do harm with no benefits would never be accepted). They do not take priority over moral requirements, the very rationality of the commands depends on whether the end is moral.
“Coherence is challenged by the thought that the political imperatives are themselves part of morality and their clashing with more normal moral demands produces a crisis within the moral order.” Once again, a ridiculous political measure would not be accepted morally. We make the distinction between a politician and a normal person, and that distinction is that of the point of view. The politician’s goal is the good (using the word good loosely) of the whole, and while you can technically give the person the same goal, the person’s responsibility usually concerns himself and those he directly affects. It is not rational to use the same scale to measure two distinct agents, just because political imperatives clash with “normal” demands, it doesn’t follow that morality is incoherent.
Obviously, the argument he presents is more complicated and more suited for reality. “The ultimate goal for the right” sounds good on paper but doesn’t work in the real world and debates for the morally of a political act will always be open.. However, I don’t find myself accepting the claim that the fact we give politicians more wiggle room to act compromises the basic components of morality.