ETHICAL STATE
The term "ethical state" can indicate two opposing concepts. The first, more common and traditional meaning is that the State must pursue goals dictated by ethics or, at the very least, that its regulations cannot contradict ethical principles.
A second meaning is that the State itself determines what is good and what is evil. This concept was explicitly articulated by Hegel. In his complex philosophical system, all reality is resolved within the spirit, which unfolds in three moments: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with the latter representing the resolution of the first two. This results in a hierarchical system where all moments and manifestations are placed within a kind of scale, each finding its position at a certain level of self-awareness.
At a certain point, Hegel states that the State is the self-awareness of a people, the highest moment, and therefore it is up to the State to establish what is good and what is evil—a sort of god on earth. Furthermore, he claims that the King of Prussia embodies the self-awareness of Germany, which he considers the people with the highest consciousness in all of humanity.
This is not the place to examine the overall coherence and reasonableness of Hegel's philosophical system, but rather to look at how such a conception has played out in human history.
It seems to us that this idea can be traced in the two movements that characterized the 20th century and were rightly defined as totalitarian: fascism and communism. "Totalitarian" means that the political regime did not merely regulate certain aspects of life (such as the economy, internal order, and defense) but sought to shape a homo novus.
Accordingly, citizens were not given the freedom to choose their own path but were instead educated into the model of humanity considered the only true and just one.
Communism sought to create a person free from the chains of selfishness, an active participant in a society where each gives according to their ability and receives according to their needs.
Fascism, on the other hand, sought to create an individual who would make their homeland great—sometimes with a civilizing mission (like the Romans), sometimes with the sheer will to dominate other peoples.
In both cases, it is the State—ultimately led by a single person—that determines what is good and what is evil to achieve the ideal human model it envisions.
A different, indeed opposite, idea of the ethical state is the traditional one, where the State enforces a pre-existing and superior ethical law. In this case, the State merely implements and, at most, concretizes a higher law. This raises the issue of what to do when ethics and the State come into conflict—an issue that has existed since the dawn of civilization.
A symbolic example is the Greek tragedy Antigone: the State forbids her from giving her brother an honorable burial because he fought against the homeland, but she sees it as an inescapable ethical duty. Antigone chooses to disobey and uphold her ethical obligation, even at the cost of her life.
The primacy of morality over politics is generally accepted: for example, early Christians preferred martyrdom over the civic duty of recognizing the divinity of the emperor.
The sovereign was always considered an absolute (non-democratic) power, and legitimacy depended on adherence to justice (ethics); a ruler who did not uphold justice was a tyrant. Saint Thomas Aquinas even argued that subjects had the right—or rather, the duty—to rebel against an unjust ruler.
However, Machiavelli, with his realism, distinguished between politics and ethics: the goal should always be ethical, though the means could, if necessary, be unethical. The ethical end thus justified non-ethical means. Yet even in Machiavelli, there is no doubt that the ultimate aim of politics must be the common good.
All of this created a strong connection between political and religious power—one that we moderns often fail to fully appreciate.
If the purpose of the State is to enforce morality and justice, and if morality is founded on God's will, then the sovereign becomes God's delegate, administering justice on earth and enforcing eternal, immutable laws.
As the Muslim Brotherhood asserts, the State has only executive power, while legislative power belongs to God.
In the Middle Ages, a struggle for supremacy arose between the emperor (political power) and the pope (religious power). This conflict should not be seen—contrary to modern interpretations—as a battle between secularism and theocracy; rather, both claimed divine authority.
In modern democracy, popular sovereignty is asserted, and no religious authority can limit it (secularism of the State). However, this does not mean that the State has absolute power, beyond good and evil.
The idea remains that the State must uphold justice and morality: slavery, worker exploitation, inequality, and the reduction of women to objects are prohibited by law because they are unjust, while welfare for children, the poor, and the sick is promoted because it is just.
Laws reflect what the majority considers ethically right at a given historical moment. Additionally, constitutions enshrine principles such as gender and racial equality, as well as individual freedoms, placing them above the will of any majority—making them untouchable even by the State. Constitutional courts safeguard these rights.
Thus, even in this case, the State cannot go beyond the principles deemed ethical.
However, the concrete definition of such rights always depends on historical context. For example, until recently, homosexuality was considered a crime, whereas today it is increasingly recognized as a right, reflecting a radical shift in perception.
The fact remains that what is considered good or evil always depends on the historical period and can change over time.
We must be aware that the concept of justice evolves with history: we cannot judge the present by the standards of the past, nor the past by the standards of the present.