President Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address with the usual fanfare and heckling. There was the typical standing and sitting, toadying from the President’s party, and jeers from the opposing party. One of the most interesting exchanges for me took place between Senator Mitt Romney and New York Representative George Santos.

It was notable because it was criticism directed from a senior to a junior member of the same party. Romney accused Santos of being an embarrassment who should be sitting in the back of the room because of Santos’ recently uncovered deceptions. Some Republican politicians endorse Romney’s sanction, but it unclear whether all are as concerned about Santos’ lies, or whether they should be.

Questions about the proper role of ethics and civility in politics is subject to nuance and interpretation. Is the idea of ethical politics an oxymoron like “jumbo shrimp”?

Should we be concerned about the bad behavior of politicians and the decline of civility in American politics?

I’ve noticed that people are more likely to feel moral outrage at politicians in the party opposite from their own, while excusing similar wrongs done by those on their own side. There is a tendency to point out that the other side does immoral things, too. While some pundits are condemning jabs directed at Biden by various Republicans during the State of the Union, the heckling of Biden seemed no different than taunts aimed at former President Trump. Both pale in comparison to angry squabbles standard in the British parliament and other nations’ governments, which sometimes become physically violent. Politics is a dog-eat-dog affair.

Does this mean that bad behaviors should be tolerated?

The philosopher Immanuel Kant took a hard line on the need for ethical rules in politics. Lying, cheating, and breaking promises are always wrong because they undermine the universal rational standards required for a cooperative society. His view seems backed by religious teachings that certain actions are wrong for everyone, all of the time. Machiavelli took the stark opposite position, claiming that a supreme sovereign can do no wrong and is better feared by citizens than loved, permitting all sorts of political atrocities. But the views of Aristotle seem more reasonable, that virtue is a matter of context, dependent upon one’s profession and life circumstances, and subject to a mean between deficiency and excess. Morally, a politician should be neither too bad, nor too good.

The ethical rules are arguably different in politics than in other professions. Some behaviors that might get a person fired in other professions — inflating one’s resume, mishandling confidential documents, sexual misconduct — do not always seriously scathe politicians.

Like the proverbial used car salesperson, we expect politicians to have some level of dirty hands. Few politicians would be effective if they were saints. But we should take another cue from the Greco-Roman tradition and value civility and civics. Civics and civility deserve serious respect. We should have gravitas for “civitas”.

For the Greeks and Romans, politics and ethics were linked by “civitas”, the concept of citizenship. The idea of “civility” — the quality of courtesy and politeness in discourse, shares linguistic roots with “civics” –the study of the rights and duties of citizenship. The “civitas”, citizens united by law, should be civil to one another because they share common interests.

As Plato saw it, politicians also should be wise and ethical because they lead the state and serve as role models. Plato compared the “civitas” to a human being. Each body part has a distinct function, but share in a common good. It is the primary role of a nation’s leaders to assure that the public body works together in the way best for the whole. To say that politicians should be ethical does not mean that they should be naïve or weak. It is precisely because politics often involves violence that moral character is necessary to restrain it and know when it is absolutely necessary.

There used to be more gravitas for “civitas”. Civics used to be standard curriculum. But the government being united by a common good is hard to grasp in today’s caustic and divided political climate. It may be that increased awareness of the moral imperfection of so many politicians is jading our expectations.

But I admire Romney’s willingness to call out bad behavior regardless of political expediency and party allegiance. More politicians, Republican and Democrat, should do the same.

Santos’ lies are not as immoral as some behaviors seen in politicians across the ages, but they should not be ignored or encouraged. There is a place for sanction of bad behavior within as well as across both parties. We all need more gravitas for “civitas”, lest the character of citizens and politicians slide even more toward incivility and moral decline.

— Maureen Sander-Staudt is a professor of philosophy at Southwest Minnesota State University