These problems have drawn a lot of philosophical attention. Should political leaders violate the deepest constraints of morality in order to achieve great goods or avoid disasters for their communities? This is the 'problem of dirty hands'. Basic is the idea that correct political action must sometimes conflict with profound moral norms. I've cited the American political theorist, Michael Walzer below, but he is only an example. Walzer's views have a lot in common with Machiavelli and Max Weber. The dirty hands problem has affinities with the problem raised by moral dilemmas. My hands have been pretty dirty in the world and I'm sure philosophy doesn't have answers. I would, in all certainty, have done 'worse' had I believed a sufficiently serious problem could be resolved by dirty means. None of this leads me to believe what we are doing in the world is justified. It might be if we were being told the truth, but this is not the case. The web of establishment lies is too big a problem to allow true ethical reflection.
Walzer, Michael, 1973, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 2, no. 2, 1973, pp. 160–180. Walzer, Michael, 1974, “Political Action: the Problem of Dirty Hands” in Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel and Thomas Scanlon (eds.), War and Moral Responsibility, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 62– 82. Walzer, Michael, 1977, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, New York: Basic Books. Walzer, Michael, 2004a, “Emergency Ethics”, in Arguing About War, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 33–50. Walzer, Michael, 2004b, “Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses”, in Arguing About War, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 51–66. Walzer, Michael, 2006, “Terrorism and Just War”, Philosophia, vol. 34, pp. 3–12. On 31 Aug, 00:28, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > People generally aren't much good with facts Francis and we won't face > up to the madness as long as people keep telling us it's acceptable. > There is a very simple con involved, not much different from selling. > It's in everything now like a disease - perhaps why we experience so > much dis - ease. We still haven't caught the real terrorists, or even > identified them. > > On 30 Aug, 18:43, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 30 Aug., 17:51, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes, you have good points except that Guantanamo went on for seven > > > years. There was plenty of outrage, yet It is still not over. > > > I'll just quickly take up one point here. Yes, the USA needed 7 years > > to tackle the Guantanamo question. In this period there were two mid- > > term elections and two presidential elections - only after the last of > > these did things finally start to move. The basic "facts" pertaining > > to Guantanamo were generally known from the beginning. There were also > > figures who presented themselves (more or less) as alternatives to > > Bush's politics and measures. The US electorate decided in 2002, 2004 > > and 2006 not to give them practical majorities. Like it or not, those > > of us living in systems which organise themselves according to the > > principle of representative democracy have to accept election results > > (as long as they are generally regarded as being fair). The > > unfortunate fact is that, despite the question of legitimacy regarding > > Bush's first term (I'll leave it to Chris to educate us in the > > peculiarities of Florida election procedures, should he wish), the > > majority of those who voted in November 2004 in the USA gave Dubya a > > second term. Confused, misled, lied-to, foxxed as the electorate may > > have partly been, the majority of US Americans who bothered to vote > > chose to ignore the alternative views being presented and confirmed > > Bush, his regime and his policies for a second term. > > > It took so long, because it took so long for the majority of voters in > > the US to finally look at what was really going on. But, seen in a > > purely US context, that was as much the responsibility of "us" (the > > voting electorate, who gave Bush a continued mandate) as it was of > > "them" (the politicians who carried on doing what they were doing). > > Try as we may, we cannot abdicate responsibilities - or pass them on, > > like a blank cheque, to someone else. > > > "If we have this power you speak of, why do these things not only > > > > occur, but carry on for years and years?" > > > Because it often takes that long for us to realise our > > responsibilities and do something about them, that's why. > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
