A Critique From Institutional Ethics To The Moral Boundary Of The Political Action From The Utilitarianism Point Of View

On the problem that whether the political actions have some moral boundaries, or thepolitical actions must comply with some moral requirements, and which moral requirements,the answers from the two approaches to politics, the approach of positive and of normative,are different. The positive approach to politics, or the political science, claims that thepolitical actions are independent of morals, and need not to comply with any moralrequirements; while the normative one to politics, or the political philosophy, insists that thepolitical actions must comply with moral requirements, and be within the moral boundary.Nevertheless, the different normative approaches in the political philosophy disagree onwhich moral requirements the political actions should comply with.Utilitarianism is a very typical and wide-influence position in the normative approach topolitics. Since the Utilitarianism insists that the ultimate end of the political actions is tomaximize the greatest happiness of the greatest number of the people, and happiness ispursued by all rational person, the utilitarian moral boundary of political actions has a verywide-spread influence. Although the particular views on the moral boundary of politicalactions within the utilitarian school are various. For instance, Bentham holds that a morallypolitical action is just an action of maximizing the greatest happiness of the greatest numberof the people, even a policy of interfering private sphere and a positive redistribution beingadopted; but Pareto insists that the only destiny of political actions is to assure theconsequence and condition of Pareto-superior (or Pareto-optimal), which come from thetrade-off action freely and voluntarily; and Mill emphasizes that the morally political actionsought to promote the virtue and wisdom in the people, and therefore increase their welfare, onthe one hand, and keep exactly within the principle that an action should not be interferedunless it hurt others, on the other hand. Each of these opinions has its deficiency, and cannot be taken as the moral boundary of political actions.There are many other moral doctrines, such as virtue ethics and deontology, which canprovide moral boundaries to the political actions, besides utilitarianism. But the syntheticalperspective of institutional ethics can conformity more resources to provide a morereasonably moral boundary to the political actions. According to the requirements ofinstitutional good and justice in the institutional ethics, and the theories of virtue ethics and deontology, a good or right political action must be justifiable both in end and means,therefore, the moral boundary of political actions should be these principle, such as takinghuman as the ultimate end, pursuing social harmony, keeping exactly within the boundary ofoneself, and inducting in light to the state of affairs.