Can we act morally without being interested in politics? (correction)

One of the exam questions of the baccalaureate of philosophy in series S was about the question:
Can one act morally without being interested in politics?

Analysis of the question:

Can we: calls for a dialectical plan?
To act: Power proper to the man to transform what is, to express itself by
Morally: what is morality? It is a vast debate and it will be necessary necessarily have to study all the possible definitions of morality during the course of the essay.
To be interested: To medals (in a matter), to intervene. If we go so far as to if one goes so far as to understand to be interested as to intervene, there is already an action;
Politics: Their to it is a vague notion it is necessary throughout the dissertation to try to define it better; generally: Relating to the affairs of the State and their conduct.

Problematic of the question:

It is necessary to find the problem which is posed by the question. Why is the question being asked?

The formulation of the question leaves a presupposition that one can only act morally by being interested in politics. And it would be a question of verifying this proposition.

When one makes politics, does one necessarily have to ignore morality? Can or is politics forced to emancipate itself from morality? On the contrary, would politics not allow acting morally?

Plan of the question:

I. Turning away from politics allows acting more morally.

—The Epicureans recommended not to enter political life, to turn away from it. To act morally could only be done by turning away from politics.

—Machiavelli affirms the autonomy of Politics against ethics, by being conscious of its moral ends. The morality of duty is outdated. The
political seek means that they are indifferent to morality. If politics is not moral, turning away from politics can only allow one to act more morally.

II. However, one must necessarily be interested in politics

—“Man is a political animal,” explains Aristotle. But what is in man’s nature can be moral. So to be interested in politics, which is in the nature of man, must be moral.

—It would even be immoral not to be interested in politics. Sartre in Situation II declares:“A man does not exist in the manner of the tree or the stone: it is necessary that he makes himself workers (…): he is engaged, it is necessary to bet, and the abstention is a choice. Totally
engaged and totally free.
” The man thus engaged could act morally only by being interested in the politics.

III. To act morally is to choose a policy

—To act morally cannot be considered by the goal which must be reached, i.e. it is not the policy as a goal, but the maxim which makes the act: “An action accomplished by duty draws its moral value not from the goal which must be reached by it, but from the maxim according to which it is decided” Immanuel Kant

—To act morally is possible if one follows this conduct: “Act only according to the maxim which makes you want it to become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant) and it is clear that the idea of a “universal law” is like a proper policy. So to act morally is to act according to one’s moral politics.

→ All the other correction and topics of the French baccalaureate 2013
→ Does work allow for self-awareness?
Answer key to the commentary on the extract from Henri Bergson’s Thought and Motion