Throughout the blogs I’ve seen quite a few posts about numerous political ideas that are present in the popular movie “The Dark Knight” directed by Christian Nolan - however there was another memorable scene in the movie which, to me, was very clearly exemplifying a situation of the dirty hands. In the Dark Knight, The Joker is a sort of anarchist that creates havoc in many ways throughout the movie - culminating in a final scene in which two group of civilians, criminals and the “good” citizens, are thrown into a devilish scenario which the Joker describes as a “social experiment”. The clip below should explain the situation in its entirety.
The most significant portion of this clip begins at 3:38 at which point the man - let’s call him Mr. Not-so-Noble - stands up and actually mentions the concept of dirty hands: “No one wants to get their hands dirty... Fine! I’ll do it. Those men on that boat - they made their choices. They chose to murder and steal, it doesn’t make any sense for us to have to die too.” At this point, it becomes very obvious that this is, in fact, a situation of the dirty hands. But other than the fact that Mr. Not-so-Noble actually uttered the words “dirty hands”, what makes this situation a dirty hands situation?
Well, as described by the Joker, the people on each boat have a decision: they can either sit on the boat, neglecting to set off their detonator, risking the chance of being killed by the other group - or, they can set off their detonator, killing everyone on the other boat and 100% guaranteeing their own safety (as long as they actually believe that The Joker will keep to his word, that is). The reason why this makes it a dirty hands situation can be explained by Mr. Not-so-Noble - when he stands up, completely willing to set off the bomb, he thinks he is doing it for the good of the people on his own boat. One could say that a society with more good citizens and less criminals is a society better off, therefore Mr. Not-so-Noble’s logic would be correct: killing criminals in order to save good citizens is beneficial to the state, and therefore it would be beneficial to set off the detonator and kill the criminals. Beneficial, yet completely immoral - making this a situation of the dirty hands.
Now, what about the criminals on the other boat? From their perspective, this is actually also a situation of the dirty hands, but we can explain why in different reasons for them. You see, everyone acts in the interest of those that surround them. If someone were to set off the detonator to kill the good citizens, he wouldn’t be doing it merely for the sport of killing people, he would be doing it in order to save everyone on his own boat. Therefore, his immoral actions would have a purpose, a good-willed purpose of preserving the lives of those around him. Once again, an immoral act with good intentions - dirty hands.
Furthermore, the joker describes this situation that he has fabricated as a “social experiment”. What exactly, then, makes this boat scenario a social experiment? Well, according to The Joker “Nobody panics when things go ‘according to plan.’ Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all ‘part of the plan’. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!” This basically sums of the situation - you see, dirty hands is not usually a situation that your everyday Joe Schmoe encounters, it’s usually a dilemma that’s reserved for the high rollers to deal with - leave it to this or that politician to “get his/her hands dirty”. We, as citizens, don’t expect to have to deal with such a situation, therefore by giving the power to decide the fate of others to two groups of petty citizens The Joker is certainly not proceeding “according to plan”.
Furthermore, The Joker is ultimately experimenting with the morality of each group of people. We would expect good citizens to value the lives of others - no matter how backwards that other group (the criminals) was. But just look at how their vote turned out, and how willing Mr. Not-so-Noble was to set off the detonator to save his own skin. In an opposite fashion, we would generally expect criminals to be very willing to get their hands dirty because we would think that they are morally corrupt, which is why we are surprised when the criminal who stands up, seeming to be willing to pull the trigger, actually throws the detonator out the window. In this way this scene becomes very shocking.
Those who are willing to get their hands dirty for others are often referred to as tragic heroes - they give up their salvation and moral-goodness in order to benefit their companions. However, in the movie Mr. Not-so-Noble is portrayed as sort of sketchy and sweaty - not very heroic and seeming to be acting out of self-interest. If he pulled the trigger (he didn’t end up pulling it even though the clip doesn’t show it), I would actually vouch that he would deserve punishment for getting his hands dirty. For example, if the Joker actually switched the detonators in the movie - meaning he lied and that each boat actually had the detonator to their own boat - this punishment would be delivered swiftly and with deadly force.
Images:
http://img.phombo.com/img1/photocombo/5481/_35_Amazing_JOKER_heath_ledger_wallpapers-6.jpg_The-Joker-the-joker-1958702-1024-768.jpg
I thought this was a great post! I think that when you said that dirty hands is a problem that is "reserved for high rollers to deal with," you are very accurate. When it's about the little people, most people don't care. But, when it comes to those in the spotlight and those that everyone know, it becomes a completely different situation. It also brings out a question of some peoples' lives being worth more than others. I think this really shows that dirty hands occurs most with politicians because they have greater power and are held to a somewhat higher standard. I do like that you point out that having the citizens be in charge of the detonator is not something that is "according to the plan." This isn't something most of us deal with everyday and it's interesting to see how we would react. Especially because in the film we see the prisoners acting in a way we wouldn't think they would, and the "good" citizens acting in a way that we may not think they would either.
ReplyDeleteGreat post first off, everybody likes Batman! Second, I can honestly say that I have always had the "what if" in my mind about whether or not the Joker did what he said he did, and gave the boats the opposite detonators. During that whole scene I was waiting for Mr. Not-so-Noble to blow his own boat up. Anyways,great topic, it is perfect for dirty hands. It is a double dirty hands problem. Both sides of the coin are given the one option of dirty hands, or die. It just so happens that the Joker had another plan for his experiment wherein both ships would live if neither pressed a button. I really like the quote you put in, it makes the dirty hands aspect and shoves it in your face. When the president is faced with a dirty hands decision, most of us can't even fathom what must be going through his head. Presenting dirty hands in this manner, in the citizen's hands, it forces us to think about what we would do. It also plays on the emotions of both groups. They must ask themselves, why should we care about anybody on that other boat? They probably don't care about us, and wouldn't hesitate to blow us up. The moral dilemma here is a quintessential example of this, good job!
ReplyDeleteStanley, your post was a pleasure to read for two reasons: one is the great connection you draw between dirty hands politics, and the other being my love and interest for Batman--especially "The Dark Knight." Like I said, your comparison between the situation the people on both boats find themselves in and dirty hands politics is on point and extremely accurate. I, too, am extremely curious to whether the Joker actually switched the detonators as part of his elaborate scheme. However, one aspect I disagree with is: "dirty hands is not usually a situation that your everyday Joe Schmoe encounters, it’s usually a dilemma that’s reserved for the high rollers to deal with." Yes, people don't care as much when the dilemma applies to "your everyday Joe Schmoe," and yes, the "high rollers" and high-up politicians' dirty hand dilemmas will draw much more publicity and controversy; however, the dirty hand dilemma is not "just reserved for the high rollers." The decision and outcome may be more monumental for the high rollers, but the concept and dilemma of dirty hands applies to everyone. We all face numerous dirty hand situations and must make a decision, even when both sides have their pros and cons. The dilemma is not reserved for anyone; it applies to everyone.
ReplyDeleteStanley,
ReplyDeleteAwesome post and great example. It's always interesting to think about what would have happened had either side pressed the button. The Joker does a good job setting up this idea of dirty hands, as he believes all people have the capacity to act in evil ways (even if this just means dirtying their own hands).
I actually think Batman himself is an example of dirty hands. Vigilante justice is, by definition, outside of the law, and thus would not be morally correct unless in circumstances of dirty hands. The entire idea that Batman is a force of good rather than immorality (evil) is based on a notion and assumption of dirty hands.
Interesting read!
Brad
This is one of the most obvious examples of the dirty hands question in The Dark Knight, but that theme in fact prevails throughout the entire movie. Regarding Batman, he ignores international jurisdiction to kidnap a criminal in Hong Kong, breaches the privacy of millions in order to locate the Joker via Morgan Freeman’s personal PATRIOT Act privileges. Meanwhile, Harvey Dent crusades to eradicate evil from the town of Gotham, eventually becoming consumed with this lust by the movie’s final act. All of these actions are done with initial good intentions, and in some cases they pay off and are an example of the necessity of dirty hands. However, in Dent’s case, I think this shows how an initial acceptance of having dirty hands could lead to a dangerous descent down a strongly immoral path with only destruction in its wake.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post.
ReplyDeleteI found the last paragraph of your post to be particularly appealing, especially when you mention the portrayal of Mr. Not-so-Noble compared to the portrayal of the average tragic hero. This made me consider the perceptions of politicians and other figures with dirty hands in modern society. Rather than their reputation being completely clean or terribly marred by their actions, they seem to be held in a sort of complicated manner. For example, President Harry Truman, the man considered to be responsible for the dropping of the atomic bombs, is seen as a both bold, noble, and courageous for detonating the bombs to win the war, but also as a wicked man for mercilessly killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Through this, it is truly interesting to analyze the portrayals of people with dirty hands in the media.
Ben
Stanley,
ReplyDeleteThe post does a great job of analyzing a situation in which there can seemingly be no moral act. Pull the trigger, kill a boatload of others, don't pull the trigger accept death, whether it be the death of only one boat or the death of both. Here is my take on the situation. Should one decide to pull the trigger, or let someone pull the trigger, and eliminate the other boat, they would have to live the rest of their lives knowing that they were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of others. Now, should they not pull the trigger, they die with the comfort of knowing that they did not play the joker's game and took the moral high ground. I think that the decision has to be to not pull the trigger. Dirty Hands comes about when you commit a morally wrong act for the good of society, and I do not think that pulling the trigger is an act that is good for society. It is giving in to a madman who wishes to see chaos ensue. One must accept that he has been thrust into an impossible situation, and take the moral high ground.
Stan, this was a great post not only because I love Batman but also because you pointed out some things that I did not realize. Prior to taking this course, I would not even have seen the issue of dirty hands. I, too, saw the person who took the detonator on the civilian boat to me more selfish than he was working for the collective goal of the people. In a sense, it also seemed to provide a collective action problem. Most people did not have to vote when it was put, therefore only the people who felt most strongly about killing off the criminal vote would be the ones voting and would thus be the majority. The problem then becomes if those people who do not want the other boat to explode have to vote to balance it out.
ReplyDeleteMy question, though, is that do you think that any dirty hands was necessary in the first place? The end result was definitely better than detonating the bomb on either boat since more people survived. So does dirty hands excuse the definitively better result? And would it be considered justified at all?