Xxxxxx’x Dirty Hands Sample Clauses

Xxxxxx’x Dirty Hands. The modern DH debate originates with Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx’x 1973 paper “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands”. Xxxxxx (1973: 160) argued that politicians would often be forced to “choose between two courses of action” where the ATC-right action entails dirt. Politicians must refuse a purist absolutism, but still acknowledge that the dirt they incur exists and is not annulled by consequentialist or political necessity. Citizens, too, want politicians who within certain contexts and for the right reasons break these moral norms (Xxxxxx, 1973: 162). DH reasoning provides both excuses and justifications for the moral violation that the politician commits, containing within it both “an admission of fault” and an “assertion” that the correct action was taken (Xxxxxx, 1973: 170). Xxxxxx (1973: 161) derives the term ‘Dirty Hands’ from the Xxxxxx (1949) play of the same name, and more specifically from the philosophy espoused by the character of Xxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxxx, a senior Communist revolutionary, stands accused of trading his ideals for political exigency, acting in manners contrary to his ideology and collaborating deceitfully with class enemies in the name of consolidating political power. This is not an accusation he denies. Instead, he defiantly tells Xxxx, a more idealistic party member, that “I have dirty hands right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in filth and blood. Do you think you can govern innocently?” (Xxxxxx, 1949: 244, cited by Xxxxxx, 1973: 171). We must, Xxxxxx asks us to 2 I will discuss these views throughout the thesis. It is worth saying now that I believe, while they all represent true consequences of dirt, their validity varies between the different categories of dirt. For example, a focus on personal integrity is more apposite when discussing DC, while a focus on violating norms of permissibility and stepping outside democratic functionings is more suited for DE. conclude, accept that the right thing to do in politics is determined not by moralistic principles alone. Politicians must, if they want to achieve good things and avert catastrophes, adapt to how others have “set the terms of the competition” (Xxxxxx, 1973: 163). However, we also do not want to be ruled by politicians who are subject only to “prudential control” (Xxxxxx, 1973: 179). Politicians must not hide their dirt, but instead submit themselves to social control and offer a moral account of their actions. The way to do this, then, is to understand these choices as disc...