Are People in Government Ever Justified in Getting Their Hands Dirty - Coursework Example

ARE PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT EVER JUSTIFIED IN GETTING THEIR HANDS DIRTY? By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Are People In Government Ever Justified In Getting Their Hands Dirty? Introduction Ethical people according to Cramwinckel et al. (2013, p.93) are supposed not only to conduct themselves in an ethical manner but also in promoting ethical behaviour by punishing unethical behaviour and rewarding ethical behaviour. In truth, people in government sometimes reward behaviours that are unethical. This essay focuses on the concept of ‘Dirty Hands’, which normally occurs in public administration, especially amongst political leaders who transgress to serve the interest of the public. Still, ‘dirty hand’ concept has been debated extensively in the literature with the objective of establishing whether the ends justify means. Through the terrorism rhetoric and under the pretence of security threats, both the democratic law process and the constitutional limits concept are under attack. Proponents of unilateral public administration action believe that in extreme circumstances, the statutory limitations could be overlooked so as to realise the greater public good. Therefore, getting hands dirty through actions such as privacy invasion, imprisonment without trial, and torture can be justified if the objective is to protect the public interest. Moreover, advocates of dirty hands theory defend the unconstitutional action in emergency and extreme situations, and they still utilise this precedent in justifying and illegal activities for non-emergency policy believed to be in the good interest of the public. This essay seeks to determine whether people in government are justified to get their hands dirty. Body Michael Walzer, an American political theorist argues that the role morality governing actors in the public administration needs the actors to be ready to get their hands dirty. That is to say, the actors must be decisive so as to achieve political goals even if the act is morally wrong (Alexandra, 2005, p.3). Even though demanding that political actors must be ready to dirty their hands seems outrageous, Alexandra (2005, p.3) maintains that the political role morality as mentioned by Walzer is in fact highly moralised. Walzer believes that when engaging in public administration, the actor must break the rules and contravene his/her moral beliefs in order to achieve what he/she deems as the right action. While scores of theorists as cited by Alexandra (2005) maintain that the actors in public administration must espouse the consequentialist moral framework (lying is justified as long as it serves the public interests such as saving lives) or no person should disregard the moral-absolutist viewpoint, Walzer suggests that a political figure should be able to transgress his/her moral beliefs and at the same time acknowledging agree his/her action is immoral (Alexandra, 2005, p.4). Walzer believes a politician can be identified as good by the political community after public declaring his/her guilt. Dirty hands according to ‘realists’ are unavoidable, but ‘idealists’ believe that the issue associated with dirty hands is simply a pretext cited by individuals lacking the moral fibre to perform what they should actually do in public administration contexts. Realists see immoral actions as crucial for achieving the moral ends. Citing pragmatic theory, Calhoun (2004, p.366) opines that goodness notion has nothing above and beyond efficacy since there exists no superior concept of goodness wherein actions are deemed good could correspond. Pragmatists believe that there is no out-and-out form wherein actions could happen; therefore, goodness is merely an efficacy. Since getting the hands dirty can happen only under the presumption of some goodness criterion that is nonpragmatic, in the worldview of pragmatists, wherein reality and appearance coincide, the dirty hands’ problem cannot arise. Idealists hold the view that actors in the public administration cannot act justly by acting immorally since it is not their duty to do immoral activities. Normally, public decisions involve many people, higher stakes, often focus on weightier matters, and sometimes are enforced coercively. Therefore, the probability of some people losing to ensure the success of the greater good is normally very high. In public administration, when making a difficult decision that could result in dire consequences, the actors are sometimes forced to get their hands dirty. When serving the public interest, it is exceedingly difficult for people to act responsibly; therefore, people normally get their hands dirty to meet the exacting and conflicting demands made by the public (Bellamy, 2010, p.414). Liberal idealism, according to Bellamy (2010, p.427), provides a clean legitimacy glove, but the unclear guide on what constitutes good and right. Still, people in government are reminded by liberal idealism to act not just with popular support, but also proportionally. As mentioned by Mittwede (2012, p.26), political affairs are normally considered as a ‘dirty game’, but the reason is normally good. To get something done, even men with good morals are coerced to abandon their beliefs and principle. Although most Christians in the public administration hardly embrace the Machiavellian kind of utilitarianism, they normally experience moral dilemmas since betrayal and mistrust have become part and parcel of the political life (Mittwede, 2012, p.27). The existing ‘dirty hands’ literature as mentioned by Anderson (2014, p.306) depicts scenarios wherein politicians are expected and allowed to embark on illegal or unethical actions with the objective of achieving the public interest. A good example of getting hands dirty can be illustrated by American founding father, Thomas Jefferson’s decision of purchasing the Louisiana Territory from France with no consent from the congress. Jefferson’s decision according to Newbold (2005, p.676), provides an ideal example of the problems that could happen when practice and theory collide. When the opportunity of purchasing the Louisiana Territory surfaced, Jefferson was forced to make a decision that would offer the United States a long-lasting national and economic security protection at the expense of his firm constructionist principles. Evidently, Jefferson’s decision was a wrong one his moral consistency, equanimity as well as his strict construction principle, but the choice was right for the nation. Political morality according to Max Weber is a subject that applies to political leaders, and that no genuine democracy exists in the modern world (Sabia Jr, 1996, p.7). Weber declines to acknowledge what could be termed as the standard solutions to the dilemma of ‘dirty hands’: alleging that if people’s ends are adequately valuable, then the immoral things they have done to achieve them cannot be deemed immoral. Still, Weber does not refute that the dirty hands’ dilemma is based on the fact that evil and good do not have any interconnection, but they are actually interwoven (Sabia Jr, 1996, p.18). According to Walzer (1973, p.168), the Machiavelli's argument concerning the need of learning to be immoral unmistakably demonstrates that some behaviours are immoral even when they are not performed. Walzer believes that Machiavellian techniques are deceitful and bad, and should be avoided by the good men, at least up until they know how to be bad. Evidently, Walzer tries to cast-off the unworkable and stiff position of the absolutists devoid of refuting the reality of a loss of goodness. According to Walzer, when a good man is coerced to torture a prisoner with the objective of getting information of where they have hidden bombs that could kill many people, the torturer will be committing a moral crime; therefore, he/she must take the moral burden. Morality, as insisted by Walzer is social and the suffering of the tragic hero should be expressed socially. Unavoidable transgression as opined by Wijze (2004, p.457) has become part of people’s moral reality, and it normally happens because people always face real or genuine moral conflicts as the essential element of their day-to-day existence. Unitarians believe that the badness or goodness of any action is fundamentally a matter of that the outcome of the action, regardless of whether it results in pain or pleasure. Utilitarians and other consequentialists refute the problem of dirty hands based on the unified theory. They believe that every justification eventually relies on attaining a particular set of circumstances, maximising utility and happiness of many people. Utilitarians argue that utility is the main foundation of moral obligations; therefore, it can be invoked with the objective of finding demands that are incompatible. Therefore, provided that the action of a person results in the maximisation of the utility, then all compromises made during the process such as getting the hands dirty must be considered clean. On the other hand, virtue ethicists place emphasis on the type of person one should be, which involves practical reasoning and virtues needed to achieve happiness or eudemonia. The majority of contemporary virtue ethicists agree that all acts considered virtuous contributes enormously to the eudemonia of the actors in addition to the common good of their political community. Therefore, when the public administration actors take responsibility of their particulars and conduct themselves virtuously, then their actions would be commendable and their character will not be stained. By contrast, Kantians and other deontological theorists believe that doing right involves respecting particular rules irrespective of the outcomes. They claim that getting hands dirty in politics should not be considered as a problem. According to Kant, there is completely no conflict between politics and morality. The contemporary Kantians advancing the justice theories have also distinguished politics from morals, which refutes the problem of dirty hands. For instance, John Rawls (the American political and moral and philosopher) believes that his theory is unified because it facilitates a systematic interlocking of its two principles. Since they are ranked serially and lexically, the first principle must be fulfilled completely before starting the second principle. According to Rawls (2009, p.38), the serial ordering does not allow the principles to be balanced at all; therefore, those that were ordered earlier have more weight as compared to the later ones. Therefore, compromising and balancing can happen between the values acknowledged by one principle, like the different liberties that the first principle represents. However, given that the objective is not to do more than yielding the ideal equal liberty system when people restrict some liberty in the interest of the liberty itself, they should not be considered immoral for dirtying their hands. Certainly, their hands could remain clean despite trying and fulfilling the conditions of the non-ideal theory. These conditions according to Rawls are war, crime, as well as the struggle with deep economic as well as social burdens (Rawls, 2009). Therefore, the ideal theory provides public administration actors a picture that is reasonably clear of what is ethical while serving the interests of the public. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has determined whether people in government are justified to get their hands dirty. As evidenced in the essay, both Walzer and Machiavelli make very strong cases that sometimes the actors in the public administration are forced to lie with the objective of defending the public interest. Advocates of ‘dirty hands’ theory believe that lying is preordained part of statesmanship as well as politics. For instance, Machiavelli believes getting hands dirty in public administration is justifiable, but fails to set limits or conditions. For this reason, Walzer tries to set the limit to getting hands dirty in the punishment and guilt a public official should get for using devious means to protect the public. As demonstrated in this paper, Walzer provides an attractive theory that responds to the problem of dirty hands amongst public officials since it recognises the need for political means veering from the private life’s moral standards as well as the significance of maintaining those moral standards and being responsible for violating them. Evidently, Walzer is discontented with the position of Max Weber, which leaves people with an inward suffering after breaking the rules or violating their moral standards. Given that some wrongs committed by public officials normally amount to determinate crimes, the wrongdoers according to Walzer must be held responsible. When a public official decides to dirty their hands by going beyond the legal and moral limit, they must take responsibility and agree to public punishment. Therefore, people in government are justified to get their hands dirty if the actions are for the best interests of the public. However, the actions of public officials dirtying their hands for their own egocentric interests cannot be justified both legally and ethically; therefore, as suggested by Walzer, they should take responsibility of the actions. References Alexandra, A., 2005. Professional ethics for politicians? In Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics 12th Annual Conference. Adelaide, 2005. Anderson, J., 2014. An Open Letter to "Dirty Hands" Theorists from a Public Manager. Public Integrity, vol. 16, no. 3, pp.305–315. Bellamy, R., 2010. Dirty hands and clean gloves: Liberal ideals and real politics. European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 9, no. 4, pp.412–430. Calhoun, L., 2004. The Problem of “Dirty Hands” and Corrupt Leadership. The Independent Review, vol. 8, no. 3, pp.363–85. Cramwinckel, F.M., Cremer, D.D. & Dijke, M.v., 2013. Dirty Hands Make Dirty Leaders? The Effects of Touching Dirty Objects on Rewarding Unethical Subordinates as a Function of a Leader’s Self-Interest. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 115, no. 1, pp.93–100. Mittwede, S.K., 2012. The Dirty Hands Dilemma: Ethical Dimensions and Implications for Christian Political Involvement. The Journal for the Sociological Integration of Religion and Society, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.25-34. Newbold, S.P., 2005. Statesmanship and Ethics: The Case of Thomas Jefferson’s Dirty Hands. Public Administration Review, vol. 65, no. 6, pp.669-677. Rawls, J., 2009. A Theory of Justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Sabia Jr, D.R., 1996. Weber’s political ethics and the problem of dirty hands. Journal of Management History, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.6-20. Walzer, M., 1973. Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 2, no. 2, pp.160-80. Wijze, S.D., 2004. Tragic-Remorse – The Anguish of Dirty Hands. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 7, pp.453–471. Read More