Are “Dirty Hands” Necessary in Politics?
NO
Summary:
The definition of “Dirty Hands” is when a politician does unethical or immoral things in order to achieve a goal that will benefit the people. It is a modern spin off of the Machiavellian saying: “The end justifies the means”. The article brings across two viewpoints, the first being that dirty hands are required in politics and should be accepted because they are unavoidable and every politician will have to make some moral sacrifices for the greater good of the people. Although the politician will feel guilt over his actions, he should not be punished because he did it for progress and advancement. However, the second viewpoint states that dirty hands in a democracy is an oxymoron. Although, dirty hands are acceptable in a few extreme circumstances, either to save a life or avert a global disaster. Here is a summery of the ‘NO’ side of the article:
· Dirty Hands are avoidable in a democratic political structure
· In extreme situations, a person must do something seen as generally immoral. i.e. We do not usually push someone but we would if they were about to be hit by a car.
· Dirty handed politicians feel guilt, but a person forced into doing something unethical or immoral because of the situation does not, because they had no choice.
· ‘I have a duty to myself never to depart from the moral principles I believe that I and everyone else must follow’ Meaning dirty hands is not part of democratic politics but an extreme measure taken when all else has failed.
· Dirty hands will entail breaking of laws, if one person can do it, why can’t everyone else
·
‘Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials
shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.
In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to
observe the law scrupulously.
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.’
· It is impossible to determine weather a politician has the ability to use dirty hands because it is dependant on the situation
· It is acceptable to shoot open a pop machine to get a quarter to use a payphone to stop the imminent launch of a nuclear missile but it is not acceptable to experiment on 70 mentally ill people in order to discover ways of mind control to use against communist enemies such as what happened in MKULTRA.
· Protestors of dirty hands are not too moral or moral purists, they just believe that ‘a leader needs to act in support of a cause in ways that are beyond normal judgements of good and evil’
· Defending dirty hands and accepting it is ‘like recommending a recipe that is bound to be botched before it gets to the table.’
Glossary
Absolutist:
The term used for one who sticks to his moral principles, regardless of weather
he/she is doing the right or wrong thing for the people.
CIA: An acronym
for Central Intelligence Agency
Disinformation:
False
speech; incorrect information.
Imperiled: To put
something or somebody in danger.
In extremis: A
Latin word which means an extreme situation.
Machiavellism:
Following Machiavelli’s hard line politics
MKULTRA: An acronym
for Manufacturing Killers Utilizing Lethal Tradecraft Requiring Assassinations.
Moral: Generally accepted goodness or correctness of character and behaviour
Patronage: The power
of public officials to make appointments to government jobs or grant other favors.
Realpolitik: Politics based on practical and material factors rather than theory or ethics.
Utilitarianism: A theory
that states that the greatest good for the greatest number of people should be
the main consideration when making a choice of actions; a belief that if “the
ends justify the means,” then a decision is moral.
.
Discussion Questions
1) Are dirty hands necessary in some cases? If yes, give examples
2) What punishments should politicians face if the deceive the people?
3) How was MKULTRA an example of dirty hands? Was it necessary?
4) Does every politician need to have dirty hands to survive?
5) In the decolonisation example given by Walzer, what would you of done?
6) What politicians have dirty hands today?
7)
How were dirty hands politics
used in the ‘liberation’ of
8) Would we elect the best politician for a state if you knew he or she were ‘dirty’?
Reflection
Dirty Hands in Democratic politics has proven itself to be the greyest of all grey areas. There is no right or wrong answer to the validity of dirty hands; there are times they must be used in order to achieve the greater good, but then again, who decides what’s good for the people? The ones with the unclean hands are usually the ones with the power, thus the situations and methods of dirty hands politics are questionable.
The essay by Shugarman has one clear message; dirty hands have no place in a democracy. Many will argue that the previous notion is ridiculous because every politician has used or will use dirty hands, but in my opinion I believe it all stems down to the definition of ‘dirty hands.’ Shugarman sees ‘dirty hands’ as an action that is not necessary or forced, but as something someone undertakes for advancement without any ethical consideration. Therefore, dirty hands are not needed because unethical actions that are imperative are not considered as dirty handed moves because there was no other alternative. Basically, desperate times call for desperate measures but greed, power lust and advancement are not excuses for a politician to do what he or she desires.
Shugarman highlights that some situations call for actions that would ordinarily not be necessary. For example, pushing a person out of the way of a moving car would not make a person feel guilty because they have stopped a potentially fatal accident, regardless of the fact that pushing is unethical behaviour. The words “dirty hands” should not be related to extreme situations, because when no other alternative works and the only solution is not totally ethical, dirty hands become “unavoidable hands.”
However, it is
apparent that dirty hands have no place in everyday situations. When dirty
hands are involved in everyday situations politicians are likely take exploit
or manipulate the people to further their own wants. A perfect example of this
would be the recent sponsorship scandal where tax money was used to fund such
things as golf club memberships and expensive dinners for our top politicians.
It served no purpose to the general public other than to enable our leaders to
live lavishly, which may of helped them run the country better, a far fetched
notion but physiologically possible. However, in that situation politicians did
not positively advance the country, they criminally advanced themselves using
not just dirty, but filthy hands. Shugarman gives us
the example of MKULTRA (Manufacturing Killers Utilizing
Lethal Tradecraft Requiring Assassinations). The
Shugarman’s whole approach to the issue of dirty handed politics is righteous. Dirty hands are not necessary, and when they are, they shouldn’t be classed as dirty hands. Politicians who do use unorthodox methods are trying to advance themselves under the pretence that it is right for a state of group of people. The question was simple and so is the answer, “Dirty Hands” have no place in democracy.