Photo: Colleen Hayes / NBC.

Is it possible for a person to find themselves in a situation where no matter what they choose, they will do something morally wrong? Michael Walzer not only believes that this indeed possible, but he also argues that such moral dilemmas are an unavoidable feature of political leadership. If that is true, how then must a leader respond in such situations?

In thinking through that question, there are 3 learning outcomes for this module. When finished, you will be able to…

1. Perceive potential moral dilemmas in which you may find yourself,
2. Assess whether you agree with Michael Walzer that politics inevitably involves moral dilemmas and dirty hands, and
3. Reflect on how our leaders ought to navigate and ultimately respond to potential moral dilemmas.

Read & Annotate This:

Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands & Conflicts Between Rules

Context

The morality of torture may seem obvious: torture is both ugly and evil, and therefore it should never be practiced by any nation that deems itself civilized. Yet in this classic essay by American philosopher Michael Walzer (1973), he explicitly endorses the necessity of having leaders who are willing, in dire circumstances, to “dirty their hands” by engaging in quite horrendous actions like torture.

What is interesting, though, is that this does not make torture right—in fact, Walzer presumes torture remains immoral and wrong. However, Walzer acknowledges that leaders will face moral dilemmas where no choice is morally acceptable, and yet a choice must be made.

However, by choosing to torture, Walzer also argues that a leader must still take responsibility for torture by showing the public their “dirty hands”. That is, the leader must publicly say that they authorized the torture and explain why it was deemed necessary. After that, the fate of the leader remains for the public to ultimately decide.

James Rachels and Stuart Rachels (2018) then talk more about moral dilemmas, and whether they suggest a problem for theories (like Robert Nozick’s account of rights as constraints) that accept absolute moral rules.

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

1. Micheal Walzer claims that “no one succeeds in politics without getting his hands dirty” (1973, p. 164). How does Walzer justify this claim?
2. What is the “moral dilemma inherent in the contention” (Walzer, 1973, p. 164) that leadership requires getting one’s hands dirty? That is, what is the dilemma for a leader involving dirty hands? How do Walzer’s two examples of granting contracts and allowing torture illustrate this type of moral dilemma?
3. Ultimately, what is Walzer’s final position on torture? Is it ever permissible for a leader to engage in torture or other immoral activities? If a leader does something immoral, what does Walzer believe should be the consequences?
4. According to James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, why do moral dilemmas (like the ones presented by Walzer) present problems for absolute moral rules?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.

References

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2018). Conflicts between rules. In The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed., pp. 140–141). McGraw-Hill.

Walzer, M. (1973, Winter). Political action: The problem of dirty hands. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(2), 160–180.

Watch This:

Video 1	Video 2
Video 3	Video 4

Do This:

Supplemental Module S4 Quiz Due: November 11