In today’s Sunday Independent Eoghan Harris comments on the need for idealistic compromise and the childishness, rather than superiority, of those who refuse to move on their core beliefs.
The point is one worthy of debate, but Harris seems to be distinguishing himself and his newspaper as ‘moral innocents’ and children in light of his definition of such:
Aristotle argues that moral agents, particularly politicians, must avoid adopting extreme positions, and must always subordinate their personal principles to the common good. People who are moral innocents see no need for such compromises. Accordingly, Aristotle has no high regard for moral innocents in politics (emphasis is mine).
A child is the perfect example of a moral innocent. It will innocently insists on implementing his own agenda at all costs. But a moral adult, who is not a moral innocent like a child, cannot insist that everybody else give him exactly what he wants.
If you take what Harris previously said about The Sunday Independent’s stance on Fianna FÃ¡il during his now infamous freak-out on Today FM, he and his newspaper seem to fit this perfectly:
…Far from being true as [Vincent] Browne said that the Sunday Independent changed it’s line [after Brian Cowen met Tony O'Reilly], we changed our line when we got what we wanted on stamp duty. We were mad as hell with Fianna FÃ¡il about stamp duty…
I suppose being a moral innocent is preferable to being the mouthpiece of your manager but Harris can hardly criticise others for doing the same as he and his ‘paper have done.
(hat tip to Cedar Lounge for bringing Harris’ piece to my attention)