DIRTY HANDS THEORY

While the Dirty Hands Problem has been popularly debated for centuries, the term was coined by political theorist Michael Walzer through his essay "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands” in 1973. The Dirty Hands Problem, put simply, is a political ethics problem, debating whether leaders, or anyone in an authoritarian position, has the right to do something that is morally wrong in order to achieve the greater moral good.

The key idea of the dirty hands problem is that it argues that leaders cannot find a perfectly good solution. The philosophy argues that sometimes, during times of crises, such as war, one might have to make a decision that puts some individuals or entities in harm's way in order to achieve a net benefit.

This theory works with a clash of two moral frameworks: deontology and consequentialism. Deontology argues that certain acts, such as lying and killing, are wrong no matter what; Consequentialism, on the other hand, argues that the morality of an act depends on the outcome, in which the better outcome is more acceptable.

Notably, Walzer, in his essay, writes that leaders should still feel guilty even if in the end they achieved a morally good impact, since they still committed an immoral act. Although Walzer does believe that the Dirty Hands situation is accurate, he feels that it is important for leaders to feel guilt whilst in that situation, as guilt proves that they respect morality.

The Dirty Hands Problem also touches on the problem of the different moral standards of leaders. While private individuals and citizens of society can avoid certain wrongs (such as murder), leaders can be forced into the decision because their choice affects a greater number of people and has a more profound impact. Because the impact of their decision has such a different ground for evaluation, many argue that leaders should be evaluated off of a different moral standard.

Due to the simplicity of this theory, let’s go into a multitude of examples to get a deeper understanding of the problem. The first is the Ticking Bomb scenario. In this secnario, a bomb has been planted in a city by a terrorist, and the only way we can get the location of the bomb is to torture the suspect into telling us. While we know that it is morally wrong to torture someone, if we don’t, thousands of people in the city will die. Therefore, one may argue that it’s okay to torture the suspect in order to keep the city alive.

Another example is the Wartime Lie. In this scenario, a president is aware that the enemy country is on the verge of surrender but wants to prolong the war for a little longer so they can get more territory before negotiations. While this will cause more deaths, it could also prevent a future war. While lying is morally wrong, one may argue that it is right as we prevent more violence in the future.

Next, we have the Pandemic Cover-Up. In this scenario, a health professional becomes aware that a vaccine has very rare and deadly side effects, but the professional also knows that if they announce this to the public it will lead to mass panic and chaos. If the professional chooses to lie to people for a while, they would be lying but also preventing a societal breakdown and increase a small amount of deaths from the rare side effects. However, if the professional tells the truth, then the chaos could result in mass chaos and lack of trust in the healthcare system which could lead to an increase in deaths as well.

The Dirty Hands problem reminds us that politicians not only have a different moral weight, but also that doing the right isn’t always possible, as wrong actions sometimes have to be committed to achieve the right.