The problem of dirty hands
"Dirty hands" is an ethical theory explained by Michael Walzer in the essay "Political Action, The Problem of Dirty Hands."
Like Machiavelli, Walzer believes a good political leader must be ready to commit immoral acts for the sake of the existence of the community she serves, so, for instance, be prepared to use torture or the murder of innocent bystanders if those actions have the potential to save the community from destruction.
But Machiavelli thought leaders should not feel guilt for these activities and saw guilt as a sign of unfitness.
Walzer, on the other hand, says we should accept both deontologucal and consequentialist approaches. Leaders should recognize their own guilt and even seek punishment for the crimes they commit on behalf of their citizens.
What's confusing to me is the stark line Walzer draws between regular citizens and leaders (leadership has been on my mind lately.)
Leaders should commit these crimes, but regular people shouldn't. I'm not sure a leader can carry out these activities by themselves though.
I'm going to use this thread to explore some angles of the problem of dirty hands.
Like Machiavelli, Walzer believes a good political leader must be ready to commit immoral acts for the sake of the existence of the community she serves, so, for instance, be prepared to use torture or the murder of innocent bystanders if those actions have the potential to save the community from destruction.
But Machiavelli thought leaders should not feel guilt for these activities and saw guilt as a sign of unfitness.
Walzer, on the other hand, says we should accept both deontologucal and consequentialist approaches. Leaders should recognize their own guilt and even seek punishment for the crimes they commit on behalf of their citizens.
What's confusing to me is the stark line Walzer draws between regular citizens and leaders (leadership has been on my mind lately.)
Leaders should commit these crimes, but regular people shouldn't. I'm not sure a leader can carry out these activities by themselves though.
I'm going to use this thread to explore some angles of the problem of dirty hands.
Comments (26)
One of the problems of dirty hands could be the big gap between leader's interests and citizen's rights/needs. According to this Machiavelli principle: a good political leader must be ready to commit immoral acts for the sake of the existence of the community she serves, so, for instance, be prepared to use torture or the murder of innocent bystanders if those actions have the potential to save the community from destruction., it shows that politics are just the ambition of a few.
It can make the leader get rid of many problems but at the same time can cause disaffection towards people and promote radical ideas as anarchism.
I personally think that Machiavelli wrote all these political ideas or principles from an individual point of view. I mean, he was thinking in saving the King of that specific period of time because it was the only important sovereign value back then. But now, the issue es more difficult. Whenever the citizens see the dirty hands being applied they get angry and can destroy your image forcing you to just resign.
Walzer says a leader should earnestly and publicly demonstrate remorse, so the leader should basically destroy her own image.
I'm reading the article now (while I have access to jstor :wink:)
Wow! That's sounds quite contradictory! Because (in my ignorance) I guess the leader's image is very important! This makes a politician win or lose some polls.
Ok! Perfect :up:
Back to Mach, the modern national chief executive might perform or order all sorts of underhanded, devious, or outright illegal acts to protect 'the interests of the state'. (Not thinking here of tax evasion, Watergate break-ins, claiming to have won the lost election, etc.)
Very powerful leaders, acting in the interests of the state, will be held to a different standard than the typical citizen. How much impunity the executive has depends on how well he succeeds in both projecting and achieving success. If the depiction or performance falls too short, the lesser powers-that-be may turn on the executive, and what was previously excusable may become prosecutable,
Does Walzer really think that any leader would do that? Given the notion that power corrupts, it seems highly unlikely that any leader with sufficient chutzpah and power would voluntarily confess. At any level, leaders usually attempt to defend themselves and their leadership position. Confessions of wrongdoing are more likely to be a "Hail Mary pass" -- a last resort.
Confessing wrongdoing that is otherwise undetectable takes a very strong moral code that results in a lot of cognitive dissonance. Ambitious people who become leaders generally have pretty good ambiguity tolerance that enables them to live with inconsistencies.
True. Walzer is a political realist. I think realists of any kind venture further philosophically that a pragmatist could stomach.
The first issue Walzer ponders is whether there really is such a thing as an ethical dilemma. Some say no. Where people are more likely to say yes is in the area of governance. Sartre's character Hoerderer, asks "Do you think you can govern innocently?"
Walzer says: no.
Sorry, but what is the difference between a political realist and a political pragmatist? They seem to overlap quite a bit.
A political pragmatist will warn that the realist is following a mirage. There's no truth of the matter when it comes to ethics (or anything else, really).
So you can see how a realist has pulled a lot more rope out to hang herself with. Realists are much more interesting, but more prone to saying bizarre things like: leaders should break the rules, but be sorry for it.
He recognizes it and probably takes some decisions on it. But, at the same time, he knows he has to be corrupt and a cheater to climb in the world of power inside of politics.
Then, is a vicious circle. Corruption will never end inside politics. Again, this causes a negative image along citizens about what politicians suppose to be.
Indeed. If we understand 'leadership' to mean a position of power then most of us hold power to some degree, for example as a parent. Should we be prepared to do wrong for (what we consider) a greater good? It's a wider and more pervasive problem than statecraft.
That's Walzer's point, and that we actually want our leaders to fight dirty on our behaves.
Is that really true?
True. A parent is in a leadership role and would likely commit murder to save her child's life.
Walzer needs the parent to recognize that murder is a necessary evil, but still evil in order to preserve dilemma of dirty hands.
Do you buy this?
If I were to attack this, I'd say the example neglects the fact that torture has limited effectiveness.
IOW, the decision to do wrong is going to be based on information that could be wrong. But the ethical rule itself isn't subject to doubt in the same way. Does that work?
I think not! To be honest, I guess what we really demand of our governors is efficiency, I personally do not even care about their image.
But this does not need to be connected with being a cheater or play dirty.
If our public representatives are like that, what should we expect from public administration?
[quote=Spock/Kirk (Star Trek)]The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or...the one.[/quote]
If you were in danger of being blown up, would you want your leaders to engage in immoral acts to save you?
Same question but, for the sake of your whole country?
Well in terms of war we can make some exceptions... Nevertheless, don't you think we demand from them to be more diplomatic?
I think a good leader would put peace as a first option rather than war.
recruit soldiers would sound selfish for putting their citizens in danger if it does not exist a good reason
Yes, but it's the "exceptions" Walzer wants to focus on. Real moral dilemmas.
In the essay he covers arguments against moral dilemmas and explains why he thinks they fail to address real life.
So interesting indeed. I have learned a lot in this thread. I think I am somehow agree with Walzer. I see his view some pessimistic in terms of political/public affairs. It is understandable. In the recent years, political disaffection has increased due to the lack of effectiveness and the increase of corruption.
Yes. But he's saying accept both sides of the issue: accept that we want immoral leaders (during war), but also feel grief and shame that we accept these crimes.
I think it could be interesting what Walzer thinks about anarchism, Bakunin thought or the perception of the State as culture entity not political one
I've come across Walzer in decades past (in the pages of Z Magazine--which seems to have bit the dust). My dim recollection is that he was difficult to comprehend.
No such thing as an ethical dilemma? Really? How is that the case?
Walzer decided that there really are ethical dilemmas where you have to do evil in order to do good.
One way to deny them is to say that absent a divine order, all that exists is individuals facing problems, weighing consequences, and deciding.
Moral rules are just an accumulation of these events. They shouldn't be taken as absolutes. You can't just follow rules blindly, you have to think things through just as people have been doing since Noah's dog was a pup.
Walzer says this is wrong because morality can't be understood as reducing to the decisions of individuals. Morality is a community activity.
What do you think?
Not sure.