The Moral Dilemma

Welcome to another of the seemingly endless (and perhaps pointless) attempts to find the qualities of a good political candidate. As we continue this forced march to the November election, the next quality that I would like to touch on is that a candidate should be of "good moral judgment". Continuing scandals at almost every level of government may lead us to believe that such a thing is a vain search. But before we go too far down that road, let's at least give it a try by turning to our ready reference at Merriam Webster.  

Perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect This can't be what we are looking for, as it seems mostly like gibberish. If it has any meaning at all, it would be to say that the candidate "feels" like the right one rather than saying one "thinks" that this is the right one. I'm not sure I want to go down that path, as this seems to lead us back to the cult of personality that we have discussed before. I think that I would rather use logic to pick a candidate than my gut. 

Probable though not proved 
This may even be worse. This implies a doubt in the suitability of a candidate, rather than an affirmation of suitability. I have a doubt about all politicians in general as it is. I would like something more proven if it's all the same to you. -  
Conforming to a standard of right behavior 
This one seems to be the one at first glance, but what is "right behavior"? It was right behavior for Crusaders to kill Muslims in the name of their God. It was right behavior for the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expected, by the way) to kill any kind of "unbelievers" in the name of theirs. It is considered right behavior today by some Muslims to do the same. No, I am far from ready to accept this as a standard.  

Capable of right and wrong action 
No I don't think this one helps. Of course one can be capable of right and wrong action. The only other alternative is no action at all, something we often hope for from politicians. For the most part, when they aren't doing anything, they aren't making things worse.  

Sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment 
I think that this is what we are looking for, but I am not sure that the two parts always go together. A conscience leaves some leeway that I'm not prepared to give. It will allow someone to do something awful, and simply feel bad about it. Ethical judgment, on the other hand, is something to be sought not only in politics, but in all aspects of life. It is certainly something that someone who seeks to lead should have.

Well, this search has been more successful than most, though it seems that what we are looking for is actually an 'ethical' candidate, more than a 'moral' one. Since ethics has always seemed to be more of an unchanging standard than morals are, that's OK with me. I won't quibble over the words as long as there is something here of substance that we can use as a guidepost. Maybe we are finally on the right track, and there is something to this search after all. Of course, this probably means that we need to look up ethical (but not now).