However, John Rawls defends the theory that the political concept of justice is ultimately based on the common good of the individual rather than on the values one is expected to follow.
Unlike Aristotle, he believed that a political leader may be required to behave in evil ways if necessary to maintain his authority.
[13] Both individuals in the political domain as an authority and as active civic participants can have these values bleed through to the personal sector of morality.
Those who have emerged into the political sphere can benefit from knowing that virtues and morals can be influential prior to entering.
Political ethics deals with realizing moral values in democratic societies where citizens (and philosophers) disagree about what ideal justice is.
In a pluralist society, governments attempt to justify policies such as progressive taxation, affirmative action, the right to abortion, and universal healthcare.
The last foundation corresponds to the ethic of divinity[23] and represents a person's desire to suppress or control humanity's nature of lust, selfishness, etc.
[26] If politicians are to be effective in the real world, they cannot be bound by moral rules and must pursue the national interest.
However, Walzer points out that if the realists are asked to justify their claims, they will almost always appeal to moral principles of their own (for example, to show that ethics is harmful or counterproductive).
[27] Another kind of criticism comes from those who argue that citizens should not pay so much attention to politicians and policies but should instead look more closely at the larger structures of society where the most serious ethical problems lie.