Sunday, November 18, 2012

Avoiding Dirty Hands:Principles and the Role of Government

In Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands,  Michael Walzer asserts that politicians inevitably face moral dilemmas, in which they are seemingly forced to choose between successfully doing their job (achieving the common good of the people) and maintaining their moral integrity. This problem deals specifically with two branches of philosophy, politics and ethics, and it is important to note this when addressing the Dirty Hands Problem. The moral dilemma that arises in the Dirty Hands Problem is a contradiction in these branches, and is a result of not properly defining philosophical principles in these two branches. By properly defining the role of government and an ethical principle to refer to when evaluating concrete situations, the Dirty Hands Problem can be resolved.

The role of government can be defined as simply to protect the inherent rights of it's citizens (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness). This means that it must take the necessary measures in order to eliminate any threats to the rights, such as external threats like terrorism and internal threats like gang activity. In attempting to defend the citizens, government officials find themselves in situations in which there only course of action left seems radical. If a terrorist group has planted explosives in a public area, an official may need to result to physical torture of a captured terrorist in order to gain crucial information on the location of the explosives in order to save the lives of the citizens. Now the question is whether or not seemingly radical actions such as physical torture are inherently immoral.

The ethical principle that is relevant in evaluating the morality of this situation is that one must respect the inherent rights of human beings, and in not doing so he/she forfeits their own rights. In our terrorist situation, the terrorist holds the lives of many humans in his/her hands, and is pledging to take these lives. Therefore, the terrorist has forfeited his/her right to life, and the government official is justified in taking the necessary course of action to save the citizens.

In this situation, the Problem of Dirty Hands is resolved. The government official was able to successfully protect the people in danger, while maintaining his moral integrity. This same set of steps can be taken whenever a moral dilemma/contradiction seems to arise. Identify the branches of philosophy relevant to the situation, define your principles, and derive a moral course of action applicable to your concrete situation from your defined principles. If the moral dilemma still seems to exist, reevaluate your principles.

Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Lindsey MartinNovember 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM

    Chris,

    Interesting post. You definitely took a unique standpoint on the issue of ‘dirty hands’, however, I can’t say I agree. You stated in your post that killing, torturing, and acts that otherwise result in ‘dirty hands’ are justifiable if one forfeits their rights by not respecting the rights of other human beings. I disagree with this opinion mainly because I believe dirty hands are integral to the very institution of politics. In a way, it’s ironic that dirty hands are referred to as a “problem”, because problems are meant to be solved - dirty hands not only cannot be solved, but is necessary to the very existence of politics.

    We would have no need for politics if we didn’t need someone to do the “dirty work” for us - thus, the reason for the existence of politicians. Politicians make difficult decisions, but then again, for politics to occur, someone has to! It is necessary for someone to play the ‘scapegoat’ in society, and that is the role of politicians. Of course, they are rewarded - often in the form of glory and power, but, of course, these rewards are only received with the guilt the politician must bear for his difficult decision.

    Thus, I’d have to conclude that your solution to the dirty hands “problem” is oversimplifying politics - it is just not possible to do away with dirty hands by simply evaluating a situation and finding a moral course of action. Finding a solution to this problem would effectively cease the existence of politicians - and therefore politics and government - so it is just not feasible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownDecember 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM

      Lindsey,

      I agree that politicians often do have to do very dirty work, work that many would find very unfavorable. I do not think that our viewpoints are very different from each other, but I do think that we have slightly different ideas on morality and what "dirty hands" are.

      My argument is simply that moral dilemmas do not exist. When one seems to come across a contradiction, they must reevaluate their principles in order to resolve this contradiction or moral dilemma. In turn, if dirty hands is simply a moral dilemma faced by politicians, this dilemma can be resolved if we check our premises. This is not to say that in the type of dirty work you discuss will not have to be done by the politician, it will just be morally justified.

      If one is morally justified in taking the necessary action to protect his inherent rights, and the role of government is to protect human rights, then the government (a collection of individuals) is morally justified in taking the necessary action to protect the rights of it's citizens. Be it through dirty work of not, a government official can take comfort in his ability to wash his hands after the situation is dealt with:)

      Thanks for your feedback, and I hope this clears things up.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)