What is meant by ‘dirty hands’, and is there a problem of dirty hands?

Introduction

We all have difficult decisions to make, sometimes those decisions although difficult to not violate or strain our moral judgments. However some decisions do, they put us and others in a scenario where a right or wrong action is harder to settle upon. Dirty Hands is one of these types of scenario. This essay will look to lay out the components of dirty hands scenarios and understand if it represents a problem for a or all of our moral systems.

What is a scenario of ‘Dirty Hands’

Figure 1: Core components of the situation of Dirty Hands

From the Greeks to Shakespeare and beyond people have been writing about scenarios where hands are dirtied (Wijze, 2005). Clear formulations of why it is the case that it is the right thing to do wrong arrived with Machiavelli and his guidance for Princes (Tillyris, 2015). With plays that offer a view on the problem by Sartre’ and Brecht heavily influenced the modern version of the scenario (Nielson, 1996). The most influential of which is by Michael Walzer who proposes a situation where someone must choose between two options, both of which would be morally wrong (Walzer, 1973). This breach of normative or prima facie moral rules, where prima facie is considered to be a genuine obligation that may have to yield to other pressing higher-ranked obligations based on utility or some other sort of ranking and normative as what we ought to do (Blackburn, 2016).

Beyond Walzer there are a range of views that look to understand the exact implications of the scenario of dirty hands, with some concluding that there is a problem of ‘dirty hands’, whilst others deny that (Coady, 2018). It is probably best understood by breaking the scenario of dirty hands into its component parts.

The scenarios given across the majority of the sources referenced in this paper generally use a political scenario but some use events in ordinary life. For example, the act of terror to be stopped by a politician (Meisels, 2008) or Herman Melville’s Billy Budd which sees Billy murder Claggart who sought his death through mutiny laws (Melville, 1924). What they have in common is that they are not common occurrences and generally include impactful acts and consequences.

The agents within the dirty hands scenario are normally described as the one who has the decision to make, the politician or Captain Vere, the collection of innocent agents that will be affected by the decision, such as the people or Billy Budd and the hostile agent, the terrorist or Claggart who has brought about the scenario that forces the decision. It is possible that the hostile agent may not be an agent but merely an environmental force that demands action.

The available actions to the agent are usually laid out as one when no action will incur a steep cost, usually the lives of the innocents involved and some options that go against normative prima facie moral actions but seem necessary or obligatory to avoid the worst consequences. The politician is faced with torturing the terrorist to obtain the location of a bomb and Vere’s is faced with condemning innocent Billy to death to uphold the maritime law. There is always a set of possible options that to prima facie or normative moral rules or principles would be considered wrong. Those actions must not only be usually wrong but in the specific scenario be both justified and obligatory (Stoker, 1991). When there are 2 or more options both the act and the consequences are assessed to understand which is the lesser evils (Wijze & Goodwin, 2009)

Dirty hands scenarios are not always considered a moral dilemma. Just acts that are usually moral but the bad act is akin to a moral obligation and therefore there may be a good act but one that is not always good depending on the consequences (Wijze, 2005). Taking a Dilemma as a scenario where the agent is required to enact one of two or more actions the doing of which see the agent condemned to moral failure; no matter what they do (McConnell, 2018).

The consequences of doing nothing as mentioned before normally have a steep cost. The consequences of the actions however would dirty the hands of the agent seen as one of guilt when judged against prima facie, normative or existing legal standards as well as the psychological cost and loss of integrity to the individual who took the action. The politician saves the innocent but tortures an individual and Captain Vere’s protects the law but kills the innocent billy.

The rightness, wrongness and dirtying of hands require a Moral System. The cases referenced and debated are seen through the paradigm of a Deontological or Consequentialist theory of ethics. The Deontological System looks at the morality of our choices, critically that these choices should be judged by their own merit and not the state they bring about. This stands in contrast to a consequentialist view that focuses on the end state and not the choice, ‘the means justify the ends (Alexander & Moore, 2020).For example, a deontological approach would claim that both Vere’s and the Politician are wrong to torture or kill an individual or an innocent. A consequentialist would argue that by upholding the maritime law more lives would be saved, just like the lives saved by the politicians decisive action.

The actual outcome is important within Machiavelli’s work as only effective immoral acts are acceptable, we do not want ineffective rulers (Machiavelli, 2004). The effectiveness or intended effectiveness is what most of the papers focus on but this dimension should not be forgotten.

The final piece of the puzzle is that, having determined that if the agent has performed a wrong action, there is the question as to whether the agent with dirty hands should be punished or not and what that punishment should be. This is explored by Susan Mendus through the case of Billy Budd and the conclusion that Vere’s has done wrong and carries this remorseless guilt to his grave (Mendus, 2007). The politician in a nation that has laws against punishment would receive whatever sentence the judiciary body would deem appropriate, explored in the most detail by Meisels and the possible guilt those judiciary bodies or the public would incur by not punishing immoral or illegal acts (Meisels, 2008).

Figure 2: Classification of an action and the divisions that would lead to Dirty Hands coloured in blue

A dirty hands scenario is one that leaves us with the idea of inescapable wrongdoing. That there are a set of actions, each of which are wrong in a normative or prima facie sense but necessary to avoid a greater evil and the agent that makes the decision may be effective or ineffective with the chance of judgement from the law or their own conscience.

Is there a Problem?

Figure 3: Classification of an action and the divisions that would lead to Dirty Hands coloured in blue. Further elements added with Green indicating no Dirty Hands, Amber Dirty Hands but no punishment and Red as Dirty Hands with Punishment

Walzer concludes that these situations cause a problem due to the fact that in these instances certain agents appear that they must perform an act generally considered to be wrong in order to do the right thing and that it is their obligation in the role that they hold to do it, yet they have ‘dirty hands’ from doing so (Walzer, 1973). Is it wrong that to do right we must do wrong?

Nielson agrees there are circumstances where individuals or groups have to perform actions that under normal circumstances would be completely unacceptable, often choosing the lesser evil (Nielson, 1996). However, in his response to De Wijze, Nielson outlines that despite the fact that these actions are normally wrong in the circumstances given they are the right. This is generally the consequentialist viewpoint or that of overriding moral rules, that having calculated the utility of the outcomes, we arrive at an action that is the right one, torture the terrorist or kill Billy.

Each of the consequentialist systems or the complex set of overriding rules rely on the decision-making agent or those judging them after that fact making the correct decision. To do this they have to understand the set of available actions, the likely outcomes and the chances of one set leading to the other. There is also after the scenario is complete the information on the actual outcome and whether it was indeed the right thing to do, either through the effectiveness of the action taken and the state attained or how we morally judge the events after the fact.

Information is, however, never perfect, seen as a reduces uncertainty but never entirely eliminating it (Adriaans, 2021). The point at which an act utilitarian performs their calculations of the best action will not always be correct. There is a chance that after the fact we relook at what we did and realise that it was not overall good than some other options that were on the table. We land on whether the act performed in trying circumstances is no longer simply not guilty but guilty in a forgivable sense or unforgivable and requiring of punishment. These errors are not just based on physical information but how semantic information is true or not true and even through reason never entirely uncertain (Floridi, 2011). A response might be to invoke Mackie’ Moral Error Theory and claim that Moral properties could not exist in reality and therefore my trying to create the statement s in the first place is the mistake (Kalf, 2019). However, I feel this would be a difficult stance for a consequentialist to take as the foundation of utilitarianism is the use of information about states to make moral judgements.

Considering the actions and consequences will always be known eventually in these scenarios (Coady, 2004). We must consider if even though for the survival of our society we may require those in power to make difficult decisions the possibility of an error should also concern us. Furthermore spread of new ways of thinking spread, the very scenarios we discuss for Dirty Hands generally have agents with opposing objectives forcing the issue. Those individuals came to their views in the same way we came to ours through other people discussing events (Lynch, 1996). Worse than that ideas physically change our brains and thus our minds, the moral systems we have now are not around forever (Barrett, 2020). This potential spread of ways of acting that were previously rare may become the accepted norm, we open ourselves up to a slippery slope by allowing the politician to dirty their hands with no judgement (Meisels, 2008). This in turn has been argued Archard to spread beyond the original guilty agent but to us all, which is supported by the spread of ideas and how our brains change (Archard, 2013).

This I believe is the first type of problem of dirty hands. Where through prima facie overriding rules or a consequentialist outlook we allow ourselves through error or the unpredictable spread of intolerable acts erode the moral standing of not just the deciding agent but everyone who takes no appropriate action against them. There is a case for rule-based utilitarianism to use the scenario to generate new rules to avoid the first type of issue where the guilty are seen as not guilty but cannot escape error (Smart & Williams, 1973).

Considering the actions and consequences will always be known eventually in these scenarios (Coady, 2004). The other piece we must consider is that even though for the survival of our society we may require those in power to make difficult decisions the possibility of a loophole or slippery slope should also concern us. Our society is an infinite game, a continuous series of moves where the focus is on that continuing in the most ethical way possible, where we must find a balance between our specific actions that may end our society today and the general actions avoid it ending in the future, proponents of consequentialist and overriding rules systems must consider how their system handles both error and the spread of extreme actions over time, they do not escape dirty hands (Carse, 1986).

The second type of Dirty Hands issue is with guilty but forgivable or unforgivable act or consequences, where I consider unforgivable as a crime that is punished. This is the case of Billy Budd where the law, similar to the hard rules of a deontological moral system punish someone who has committed a usually unspeakable act but had to do so in extremis or supreme emergency in the politician's case. The issue with absolute principles is one of inaction or incorrectly punished moral action. I will not tackle non-action but note it should also be considered an action that like the action and consequences of dirty hands should be judged as not guilty, forgivable or unforgivable to avoid further gaps in our moral systems.

Unlike the infinite game of society, there are circumstances where we are locked in a finite game, where the individuals either win, in the cases discussed survive or don’t. A good example of forgiveness is R v Dudley and Stephens, an English criminal case where the survivors of a shipwreck cannibalised one of their number (Cheng, et al., 2017). They were found guilty but with a plea from the judge for clemency, eventually amounting to 6 months of jail time. Without this possibility of the forgivable crime then our moral principles that we believe allow us to do the right thing have the possibility through error just like the consequentialists to do the wrong thing, even worse they have the possibility to not be in error at all and still do the wrong thing. Captain Vere’s remorseless guilt is a prime example of someone who can hide behind rules and absolve themselves of wrongdoing by putting all the burden on the crown or some other flawed moral arbiter. In the absence of a god, we should try to construct a humane equivalent that avoids the brutality of martial law where possible and even then must have the ability to forgive (Mendus, 2007).

Some acts may indeed be necessary but unforgivable. We might need moral and psychological sacrifice to make the system work of our politicians or empowered individuals (Wijze, 2013). It may be the case that we not only need politicians who are willing to dirty their hands but they must also in some circumstances be sacrificed for the conscience of the group.

Conclusion

Yes, there is a problem of dirty hands, scenarios that leave us with the idea of inescapable wrongdoing. Whether it be from error and the spread of unacceptable norms left open by consequentialist thinking or the potential merciless results of simple rules for complex scenarios allowed by deontological systems. The problem is not with the scenarios but with our thinking about moral systems, which in order to be complete must explain to us how they deal with gaps, forgive or punish appropriately and handle errors over the infinite game that is our social existence and the finite game of our individual existence.

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Core components of the situation of Dirty Hands. 1

Figure 2: Classification of an action and the divisions that would lead to Dirty Hands coloured in blue. 3

Figure 3: Classification of an action and the divisions that would lead to Dirty Hands coloured in blue. Further elements added with Green indicating no Dirty Hands, Amber Dirty Hands but no punishment and Red as Dirty Hands with Punishment. 3

 

References

Adriaans, P., 2021. Information. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Issue Fall.

Alexander, L. & Moore, M., 2020. Deontological Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Archard, D., 2013. Dirty hands and the complicity of the democratic public. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.

Baron, M., 1986. On Admirable Immorality. Ethics, pp. 557-566.

Barrett, L. F., 2020. Seven and a half lessons about the brain. London: Picador.

Bellamy, R., 2010. Dirty hands and clean gloves: liberal ideals and real politics. European Journal of Political Theory, pp. 412-430.

Blackburn, S., 2016. Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carse, J. P., 1986. Finite and Infinite Games. s.l.:Free Press.

Chappell, T., 2014. Three Kinds of Moral Imagination. In: Knowing What to Do: Imagination, Virtue, and Platonism in Ethics. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.

Cheng, E. K., Hoffmann, J. L., Shadel, M. B. & Smith, P. J., 2017. The Great Courses: Law School for Everyone, s.l.: The Teaching Company.

Coady, C., 2004. Terrorism, morality and supreme emergency. Ethics, pp. 772-789.

Coady, C., 2018. The Problem of Dirty Hands. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Coady, C. & O'Neill, O., 1991. Messy morality and the art of the possible. Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society, pp. 259-279+281-294.

Floridi, L., 2011. Semantic Information and veridicality thesis. In: The Philosophy of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 80-106.

Gowans, C. W., 1994. "The Angel Must Hang!" Inescapable Moral Wrongdoing in Melville's Billy Budd. In: Innocence Lost: An Examination of Inescapable Moral Wrongdoing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hollis, M., 2009. Dirty hands. British Journal of Political Science.

Johnson, R. & Cureton, A., 2016. Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.

Kalf, W. F., 2019. Mackie’s Conceptual Reform Moral Error Theory. Dordrecht, 53(2), pp. 175-191.

Lynch, A., 1996. Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society: The New Science of Memes: How Ideas Act Like Viruses. New York: Basic Books.

Machiavelli, N., 2004. The Prince. London: Macmillan Collectors Library.

McConnell, T., 2018. Moral Dilemmas. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Meisels, T., 2008. ‘Torture and the problem of dirty hands’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, pp. 149-173.

Melville, H., 1924. Billy Budd. London: Constable & Co..

Mendus, S., 1988. The serpent and the dove. Philosophy, pp. 331-343.

Mendus, S., 2007. Innocent before God: politics, morality and the case of Billy Budd. Political Philosophy, pp. 23-38.

Mill, J. S., 2003. Chapter II - What Utilitarianism Is. In: Utilitarianism. s.l.:Floating Press.

Movements, S., 2016. Social movements. Philosophy Compass, pp. 580-590.

Nelkin, D. K., 2021. Moral Luck. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Nielson, K., 1996. There is no dilemma of dirty hands. Politics and Morality, pp. 30-37.

Smart, J. & Williams, B., 1973. An Outline of a system of utilitarian ethics. In: Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-74.

Stocker, M., 2003. Plural and Conflicting Values. In: Dirty Hands and Ordinary Life. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.

Stoker, M., 1991. Plural and Conflicting Values. The Philosophical Quarterly, pp. 370-372.

Sutherland, S., 1995. The problem of dirty hands in politics: peace in the vegetable trade. Canadian Journal of Political Science, pp. 479-507.

Tillyris, D., 2015. Learning how not to be good. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, pp. 61-74.

Walzer, M., 1973. Political action: the problem of dirty hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs, pp. 160-180.

Wijze, S. D., 2005. Tragic remorse – the anguish of dirty hands. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, pp. 453-471.

Wijze, S. d., 2013. Punishing “dirty hands”. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.

Wijze, S. D. & Goodwin, T., 2009. Lesser Evils. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, pp. 529-540.