Dr. Jonathan Ordoñez.
Revisiting the Dilemma of the “Dirty Hands”
In 2009 an article entitled “The Problem of the Dirty Hands” was published at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This article represents, I believe, one of the most consequential pieces of moral philosophy and political theory in modern history. Roughly speaking, the article debates whether people should cross moral boundaries to achieve a greater good—e.g., Should we torture a terrorist in order to save a city from harm’s way? Should we get “our hands dirty” for a great moral necessity? In other words, the article posts interesting examples that makes the reader think about the ethics of violence in the modern world.
Even if we live the most peaceful time in human history, the encounter of violent events is almost certainly inevitable. Therefore, the discussions about the morality of violence are now more necessary than ever. Moral philosophers have wondered, if violence is indeed inevitable, under what circumstances it could be morally justified. There are three prominent views to understand the ethics of violence: (1) pacifism, which states that violence will always be immoral; (2) utilitarianism, which states that violence could sometimes be necessary to achieve a greater good for society, and (3) a combination of the previous views, which analyzes the results from the use of violence while also exploring the types of violence used.
I would claim that view #3 (the combination of pacifism and utilitarianism), although philosophically very appealing, is a theoretical contradiction, and therefore a position very difficult to observe empirically. One cannot explore the types of violence to be used if one is, in principle, opposed to any kind of violence to being with. Moreover, I think view #1 (pacifism) is the worst of them all. Pacifism is usually seen as a remarkable position to take in the face of human violence. However, it has the same problem with #3: it is a very difficult position to maintain in practice. And even though it is almost never considered immoral, I would argue it is. Ultimately, pacifism the willingness to letting people die at the hands of the world’s criminals. If this view is hard to grasp, just imagine what would a single psychopath do, armed only with a knife, to a city full of pacifist. It should be clear to all of us that such people exist, and they are better armed. Thus, I would argue that we must accept violence as an ethical necessity.
I believe that view #2 (utilitarianism) is the best moral way to understand violence. It recognizes violence as a moral requirement, but only to achieve a greater good. The problem of the Dirty Hands teaches us a difficult and necessary lesson: i) violence is not inevitable because it is part of the human condition; ii) violence could be sometimes necessary, if the benefits outweigh the costs, and iii) society at large should be prepared to face violence for greater moral good. Finally, if these messages are hardly wired in our heads, paradoxically, I believe that we will live in safer and in more morally sound world.
