Erol Göka
The idea that life itself is politics and that the struggle between good and evil is constant forms the foundation of Carl Schmitt’s political philosophy. On the other hand, the notion that morality precedes human existence, that the ‘other’ is an essential element in the construction of the self, that it stands before us even before we establish our own identity, and that the ‘other’ essentially signifies morality constitutes the core of Emanuel Levinas’ moral philosophy.
On one side, we have the political philosophy of a German; on the other, the moral philosophy of a Jew. In our view, both are correct, yet both are mistaken—because they separate morality and politics, which are in fact inseparable and complementary parts of each other. Let us elaborate.
Every Human Relationship Involves Morality and Politics
We enact our existence through and within relationships with the ‘other,’ and morality and politics are the fundamental elements of this enactment. After all, morality and politics are ultimately about what we do to the ‘other’ and how we behave toward them. Therefore, wherever there is an ‘other’ and a ‘relationship,’ morality and politics are inevitably present, regardless of the historical or social form they take.
People are born into, grow up in, and live within different communities; they differ from one another both biologically and psychologically. This very difference serves as the source of both authenticity and the foundations of morality and politics. As we navigate our individual life paths, we are compelled to cooperate with others, to share a common destiny, yet at times, we must also be prepared for conflict. In the performance of our humanity, every compromise carries the potential for a future conflict, just as every conflict holds within it the seeds of a new compromise. This dynamic is easily observable in all areas of human relations—between spouses, parents and children, friends, communities, and ultimately, in international relations.
Every individual and every community, in one way or another, generates either compromise or conflict. Based on our worldview, we identify the similarities and differences between “us” and “others.” Where there are similarities, we tend to establish relationships built on compromise; where there are differences, we often engage in relationships shaped by conflict.
When a worldview is put forward—either explicitly or implicitly—as a shared program to shape the world we live in and the way we experience life, it is called “ideology.” When this world view takes on a practical dimension that involves sustaining and transforming life (including our psychology and personality), it is called “politics.” Since each of us possesses a perspective on the world, we inevitably play the roles of actors, ideologues, and politicians on the stage of human relations—whether we are aware of it or not. There is no stepping outside these roles imposed upon us by our very humanity, not even for a moment. Even the most intimate aspects of life, such as husband-wife and parent-child relationships, serve as arenas of micro-politics in this sense.
We are all politicians in a sense, but some of us are more skilled in this field. I do not mean this in a negative way at all. The better we perform our roles, the more we earn the right to be “better parents,” “better spouses,” “better neighbors,” “better citizens,” and “better friends.”
In conclusion, every person is engaged in political activity through every action they consciously take that concerns other human beings, and they are responsible for the consequences of these actions. In its broadest sense, political activity consists of conflict and compromise. To master politics means being able to decide—where, when, with whom, how, and to what extent—to engage in conflict or compromise, while accurately assessing differences and similarities in the shortest possible time.
Morality and Politics Are Like Love and Friendship
It becomes immediately clear that political activity, as described above, is closely related to morality. In fact, we could say almost the exact same things about morality as we have said about politics. Morality and politics, much like love and friendship, are fundamental to human relationships; they are indispensable and can never be entirely separated from one another.
We might say that the difference between them lies in the emotional distance they involve. Processes that evoke intense emotions are more closely related to morality, whereas those that allow for greater emotional detachment are more associated with politics.
However, human psychology is highly dynamic. The intensity of emotions we feel constantly shifts. There may be people from our own ethnicity, tribe, or even family to whom we feel emotionally distant. At the same time, life may bring us individuals or groups we have nevermet, yet with whom we feel a stronger bond than with our own siblings, simply because weshare a common human sensitivity.
In this sense, politics and morality are so deeply intertwined and dynamic in our lives that wecannot draw clear boundaries between them. One exists within the other—or, at the very least, right beside it. When we speak of one, the other lurks in the background.
Therefore, the real distinction between politics and morality lies in the nature of moral andpolitical judgment. While moral judgment is more emotionally intense, political judgmenttends to be relatively objective.
What makes morality “emotionally intense” is the closeness and distance in our relationships, and what determines this is our sense of justice. We arrange people within our inner worldaccording to a choreography shaped by this sense of justice: Those to whom we feel thedeepest gratitude and appreciation are placed closest to us. Family members, such as parentsand children, naturally hold a special place in certain judgments. It is understandable toprotect and favor them, as long as it does not completely upset the balance of justice.
However, this balance is not fixed. No one’s place in our inner world is guaranteed forever. Someone who is dearest to us today may drift away tomorrow. Sometimes, even being fromthe same family—let alone the same lineage—can lose its meaning.
As we can see, this is a delicate and highly fluid human condition, one that can change easily. In such a situation, just as Nazi and Jewish thinkers have done, politics can be completely severed from morality. It can turn into a realm where anything—even massacres carried out in the name of individual or group interests—becomes permissible, detached from independent moral judgment, and where immorality itself is legitimized.
Yet, using the same definition, politics can also be described as the purest and most strictly moral of human activities. Without placing a finely calibrated scale of justice on the thin line between morality and politics, finding a solution seems impossible. Otherwise, one wouldinevitably justify their actions at times through morality and at other times through political necessity, switching between the two as convenient.
At the beginning, we stated that separating morality from politics is a mistake. Now, we addto this observation: unless we place a scale of justice between them, this separation become sinevitable. For a long time, I considered this to be the way to bridge the gap between morality and politics and to address the disconnect that arises.
However, over time, I realized that concepts such as the sense of justice and the scale of justice were not as solid as they seemed. This led me to reconsider and make certain changes in my approach. Before delving into those, let us go back to the beginning and examine the consequences of the disconnection between morality and politics.
Morality and Politics Are Disconnected in the World We Live In!
We hold the view—one that we will soon elaborate on—that separating morality from politics is fundamentally wrong. We believe that without an internalized sense of morality, politicsc an never embody virtue nor truly solve problems. However, we are also aware that the techno-mediatic world we live in does not validate our perspective; rather, it affirms Schmitt and Levinas, who argue for a complete separation between morality and politics.
So much so that if we were to take Carl von Clausewitz’s famous statement from On War—”War is the continuation of politics by other means (by means of violence)”—as the ultimate truth of modern times, we might as well describe today’s world as “a jungle madepolite by diplomacy.” In this context, thinkers who attribute modernity’s spiritual crisis to therupture between “moral good” and “political good” are entirely justified.
As a result of this disconnection between morality and politics, it is no coincidence that Carl Schmitt, a brilliant thinker, developed his political philosophy as a Nazi jurist. Nor is it surprising that Levinas, known as the philosopher of the “other,” ultimately became complicitin the oppressive policies of the Jewish state. (1)
I believe that in order to understand how morality and politics have become so disconnectedtoday, we must look at the history of Western thought. The French philosopher André Comte-Sponville identifies Plato and Lenin as key representatives of those in the West who argue fora close relationship between morality and politics. Though separated by centuries andradically different ideologies, both Plato and Lenin agree that morality and politics areinseparably linked. For them, the “moral good” and the “political right” are one and the same.
However, beyond this point, a major divergence emerges. Plato sees morality as the dominant force in this relationship—what is morally good is also politically right. Lenin, on the otherh and, holds the exact opposite view: for him, politics is indisputably the leading factor, and what is politically right is, by definition, morally good.
Comte-Sponville identifies the Cynics and Machiavelli as representatives of the oppositestance—those who believe there is no inherent connection between morality and politics. TheCynics, including Diogenes, place the highest value on virtue, meaning morality. For them, the ideal goal of life is to be morally good, which is far more valuable than achieving political success. They believe that virtue without power is preferable to power without virtue.
Machiavelli, like the Cynics, sees no intrinsic link between morality and politics. However, unlike them, he prioritizes political effectiveness and success over moral goodness. In his view, “It is politically wiser to lose one’s soul than to lose power.” (2)
How Should Muslims Approach the Relationship Between Morality and Politics?
The word akhlaq in Arabic is the plural of khuluq. Interestingly, khuluq shares the same rootand spelling as khalq, which means “creation” or “that which is created.” This suggests a direct connection between khalq (human nature) and akhlaq (moral conduct). In essence, morality can be understood as virtuous behavior that has been ingrained and transformed intoone’s inherent nature. Moreover, since the Creator (al-Khaliq) is the ultimate source of bothcreation and morality, morality itself is deeply rooted in the divine order.
Islamic scholar Faruk Beşer highlights this point by emphasizing that in Islam, morality is not separate from law, nor is it merely an assistant to law; rather, law serves as an instrument of morality. He further explains:
“I believe this is where we differ from the West. In the West, law takes precedence over morality. Once a person complies with the law, whether they are morally upright or not is considered a personal matter. However, in our tradition, ensuring morality is fundamental. Morality, first and foremost, is a matter of one’s relationship with the Creator. A person’s responsibilities are not fulfilled merely by respecting the rights of others; the true essence of morality lies in their reverence for Allah. This moral consciousness must exist even when one is alone, even in the private acts of the heart. Indeed, the true domain of morality is the actions of the heart.” (3)
These are truly thought-provoking insights that deserve further discussion. The relationship between morality and law, as well as the differences between the Western and Muslim worlds in this regard, is a complex subject that would require an entirely separate study.
However, rather than delving into that, I believe it is more valuable to follow the pathsuggested by the scholar and consider politics alongside morality—since morality itself belongs to the realm of the heart’s actions. I included this quotation specifically because it establishes the connection between morality and the heart.
As I also expressed in my previous article titled “Morality is Revolutionary,” I have alwaysargued—since my youth—that politics must be considered alongside morality. For example, I once stated: “The measure of political success for someone with an ethic of responsibility toward people, society, and values should not be a utilitarian mindset that prioritizes winning at all costs, but rather an unwavering commitment to morality, no matter the cost.”
Like any Muslim, I could intuitively sense—even on a subconscious level—that this shouldbe the case. However, without directly establishing the connection between morality and the heart, this deeply complex human condition could not be fully grasped, and the problem couldnot be clearly articulated.
After coming to see the heart as the source of morality and compassion as its fundamental virtue, I can now say with confidence that the arguments I have defended for years—including those I have outlined above—contain two key flaws.
First, they fail to fully explain the true source of morality. As a result, the claim that politicsand morality must never be separated, and that one must always adhere to moral politics, lacks sufficient persuasive power. Moreover, it is a mistake to discuss morality withoutconsidering, at least in part, the spiritual maturation of the individual.
Second, viewing justice merely as one of the virtues that constitute morality is insufficient. Instead of treating it as an intrinsic element of morality, I had attempted to understand it as an internal sense that balances morality and politics—an approach that, in hindsight, seemsinadequate.
At this stage in my thinking, I have come to believe that justice is not merely an internal sense that balances morality and politics. Rather, it is an entirely distinct virtue—one that emergest hrough the realization of other virtues, manifesting as harmony, balance, and coherence in moral conduct.
Similarly, I now see compassion not just as an emotion but as something that can take on moral, legal, and social dimensions. I start from the premise that the true source of morality is the spiritual heart, which connects us to the Divine. Because human beings possess a spiritual heart, they are ontologically moral beings, and the choreography of morality—present in every individual and culture—contains universal elements.
With this understanding, I believe even more strongly that morality is revolutionary. I can now see more clearly that the rupture between politics and morality stems from the spiritual corruption within people’s hearts, which distances them from moral maturity. In the past, I thought that better and more politics could solve problems and lead to a more just world. Now, however, I am increasingly convinced—and deeply concerned—that without moral andspiritual growth, without a process of healing the heart, giving politics more importance than it deserves only pushes it further away from morality, leading to decay.
References:
1) Levinas’s complicity in the oppressive policies of the Jewish state is examined in detail in the book If Love Forgives Everything: Love and Morality in the Technomediatic World (pp. 198-200). However, for a more structured view of our intellectual engagement with Levinas, the following article should also be consulted: http://www.erolgoka.net/benim-levinasim/.
2) André Comte-Sponville, A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues, trans. I. Ergüden, İletişim Publishing, 2019, 5th edition, p. 14 (from the foreword written by Tülin Bumin).
3) Faruk Beşer, “The Immoral Man,” Yeni Şafak newspaper, October 2015. https://www.yenisafak.com/yazarlar/farukbeser/ahlaksiz-adam-2022188.