The Dirty Hands Summary By Walzer

In The Perils of Obedience, Stanley Milgram introduces us to his experimental studies on the conflict between one’s own conscience and obedience to authority. From these experiments, Milgram discovered that a lot of people will obey a figure in authority; irrespective of the task given - even if it goes against their own moral belief and values. Milgram’s decision to conduct these experiments was to investigate the role of Adolf Eichmann (who played a major part in the Holocaust) and ascertain if his actions were based on the fact that he was just following orders; as most Germans accused of being guilty for war crimes commonly explained that they were only being obedient to persons in higher authority.

However, this cannot be said for all victims of guilt as the author makes sure to heed the consequences of

In his book Hardball, Chris Matthews discusses the useful strategies for getting ahead in politics that he observed during his time working in Washington, D.C. He breaks up his observations into chapters with different lessons. Three of the most important lessons are “It's Not Who You Know; It's Who You Get to Know,” (Chapter 1) “All Politics is Local,” (Chapter 2) and “Dance With the One That Brung Ya.” (Chapter 4). These chapters illustrate how important making and keeping connections and relationships is in Washington. The “game of politics” is played by using these relationships to gain favors, votes, support, etc. According to Matthews, the people who get ahead are the ones who make and keep these important connections and relationships with other politicians and the public.

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

The fourth category, condemnation of the condemners, is a type of neutralization often seen in politics. It justifies the acting party’s actions

Martí follows the several key trials that he believes provide evidence for the government’s need to accept responsibility for what is done by its citizens. In, “The trial of Guiteau,” the reader learns about Charles J. Guiteau who was convicted in the killing of President Garfield. In this essay, Martí is adamant about ensuring that no one forgives the convicted murderer for his deed. In one sentence Martí states, “He does not arouse pity; he does not arouse forgiveness; he arouses no desire to excuse him” and goes on to say, “There is no place for him in men’s hearts, only in their hatred” (95). Yet, the irony of his statements becomes evident through the sentence immediately following the latter when Martí explains that “Reason demands that his [the convicted murderer] life be spared” because he believes that “killing the monster is inadequate way of ending power’s nature to grow monsters…” (95). Thus, while Martí strongly believes that no forgiveness should be shown to Guiteau, he still believes that Guiteau deserves to live because his execution would not change the reason why it happened. Instead, Martí believes that only the government can prevent what happened by changing what caused it. Moreover, it could be loosely said that he does not believe the Guiteau is responsible for the death of the president; instead he believes that the government under which Guiteau lived is responsible. Ultimately, Martí

However, it is important to consider the political climate of the time when passing judgement. The aim of this analysis is to explore

Medvic also defends politicians on the public’s charges about how they are liars and cheats. Medvic contends that we do not know how many liars and cheaters there are in politics. However, politicians are under more scrutiny and would more than likely be caught. In addition, politicians are consistent in what they say and attempt to keep their promises, as supported by Tracy Sulkin study, (Medvic p. 112).

in politics, and even individuals in administration, are destined to get “dirty hands.” The concept implicates that individuals who interact in either of these realms cannot help but engage in conduct that is either unethical or, at the very least, less than desirable. Although, many researchers acknowledge that there does exist separate meaning between the roles of political constituents and administrative staff, many believe there are also plenty of similarities. In examining the political/administrative dichotomy, researchers have found extreme overlap in some instances, which emphasizes the probability that administrative staff can also find themselves with dirty hands. Many argue that it is absolutely necessary, in some instances, for individuals to act deceptively with a lack of transparency in order to reach ultimate goals with desirable ends. These ends might include advancing the bigger goals of the organization or preventing the fall of the organization as a whole. However, the

authors use the concept of guilt to imply the idea that guilt has the capabilities to

The purpose of this paper is intended to summarize my views on what has influenced my understanding of politics and government prior to taking this class, and how my understanding is now since completing this course.

There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that

John H. Aldrich also explains the case for weak and weakening parties Elections make incumbents, the holder of an office or post, responsible to

Furthering on this Tyran (2004) found that when a person is presented with a voting option in a referendum where the result would be of financial cost to themselves, but would be morally right, specifically relevant to the Harm / Care and Fairness / Reciprocity foundations, voters tended to vote for the morally right option. This demonstrates that the connection between moral

The third view is that even during supreme emergencies strict jus in bello laws must be observed; if we allow for exceptions the integrity of the rules themselves comes into question. The fourth view, proposed by Walzer, is to acknowledge a multidimensionality of morality and thereby invoke a paradox: the means by which we must necessarily respond in supreme emergencies are both immoral but morally necessary; they are both morally right and morally wrong, and we must learn to live with that contradiction. Orend himself, who proposes the fifth view, argues that Walzer cannot have his cake and eat it, too. He suggests instead that, while supreme emergency measures are sometimes necessary to secure victory, they are undoubtedly immoral. They are wrong, and while they are also necessary, we cannot pretend that they are moral because they are necessary. But Orend does agree that sometimes during war such measures are necessary to secure victory of victim over aggressor, and therefore a larger justice.