Virtue ethics and the best candidate for President

From the perspective of virtue ethics, the worst moral dilemmas arise when people of virtue find themselves caught in situations in which the institutions in which they play their assigned roles are themselves corrupt; so that acting virtuously in your role, doing what you ought to be doing for the good of the institution, nonetheless detracts from the good of society. That is, what is good for you and the institution that defines your role, is simultaneously bad for the larger society in which you and your institution play a role.

Everyone understands this when we say that being a deadeye shooter helps one function excellently as a hitman for the Mob, but nonetheless your excellence in that role is not virtuous for the larger society. But the Mob is widely perceived as an illegitimate institution (Tony Soprano notwithstanding!), and so this is not a true moral dilemma. A truly calamitous moral situation is when an institution widely seen as moral, or the guardian of public morality, occupies such a negative role in the health of the body politic. And so the most grievous institutional evil is the moral failure of government - to have a government so wedded to corruption and pursuing its own agenda at the expense of the commonweal that even its virtuous members find themselves constantly tempted to do things that will advance their personal fortunes, but be terrible for society at large. Horribly, this now describes the US government. A true leader will face this and identify it as the crucial problem to be solved - the rest is all details.

One man running for President has done so; one is brave enough to say the following:

"Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves."

That man's name is John Edwards. You should read the entire speech, recently given in New Hampshire; and then you should write him a check and tell him he has your vote. Those in power don't wish you to think hard about the culture of corruption, not when they benefit from it so much.

They also wish to trivialize the campaign and make nonsense of the true concepts of hypocrisy and concern for the poor. They wish to use the tools of media manipulation, fear, and false and mendacious advertising to twist you away from the truth - that their corruption continues only as long as you don't notice and don't put up a fight.

A real 'candidate for change' will have to be one who refuses to allow the accumulation of power and money by those in Washington upstage the search for truth and accountability. He or she must be one who can say (and act upon) the following:

"Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.

Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.

And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it."

Only one candidate is willing to say this - John Edwards. Please support him.