Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 61–74 | Cite as

‘Learning How Not to Be Good’: Machiavelli and the Standard Dirty Hands Thesis

Article

Abstract

‘It is necessary to a Prince to learn how not to be good’. This quotation from Machiavelli’s The Prince has become the mantra of the standard dirty hands (DH) thesis. Despite its infamy, it features proudly in most conventional expositions of the dirty hands (DH) problem, including Michael Walzer’s original analysis. In this paper, I wish to cast a doubt as to whether the standard conception of the problem of DH—the recognition that, in certain inescapable and tragic circumstances an innocent course of action is unfeasible—fully captures Machiavelli’s message and its terrifying implications. In particular, I argue that the standard DH thesis is inadequately ‘static’: it conceives the conflict between ordinary morality and political morality as a stark, momentary and rare paradox of action—an anomaly disrupting the normality of harmony. As such it misconceives both the extent and the nature of the rupture between morality and politics. In this sense, the argument I shall advance does just involve an exercise in the history of political thought. Rather, I want to suggest that, by virtue of its failure to take Machiavelli’s insights seriously, the standard DH thesis fails to live up to its purported capacity to capture the complexity and fragmentation of our moral cosmos and that, consequently, it is nothing more than a thinly veiled version of the idealism and monism it purports to reject.

Keywords

Machiavelli Dirty hands Moral conflict Political virtue Moral vice Innocence 

References

  1. Bellamy A (2009) A reply to my critics. Br J Polit Int Relat 11(3):541–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlin I (1981) The originality of Machiavelli. In: Hardy H (ed) Against the current: essays in the history of ideas. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 20–73Google Scholar
  3. Berlin I (1990) In: Hardy H (ed) The crooked timber of humanity: chapters in the history of ideas. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Casey J (1983) The noble. In: Griffiths AP (ed) Philosophy and literature. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Coady CAJ (2008) Messy morality: the challenge of politics. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Coady CAJ (2009) The problem of dirty hands. In: Zalta EN (ed) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy., Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/dirty-hands (last accessed 15 October 2013)Google Scholar
  7. Cunningham AP (1992) The moral importance of dirty hands. J Value Inq 26(2):232–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Wijze S (1994) Dirty hands—doing wrong to do right. S Afr J Philos 13(1):27–33Google Scholar
  9. de Wijze S (2005) Tragic remorse: the anguish of dirty hands. Ethical Moral Pract 7:453–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Wijze S (2006) Torture and liberalism. Democratiya 7:1–22Google Scholar
  11. de Wijze S (2009) Targeted killing: a “dirty hands” analysis. Contemp Polit 15(3):305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Wijze S (2012) Punishing dirty hands- three justifications. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 16:879–897Google Scholar
  13. de Wijze S, Goodwin TL (2009) Bellamy on dirty hands and lesser evils: a response. Br J Polit Int Relat 11(3):529–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gowans CW (2001) Innocence lost: an examination of inescapable moral wrongdoing. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Hampshire S (1989) Innocence and experience. Harvard University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Hampshire S (2000) Justice is conflict. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Hollis M (1982) Dirty hands. Br J Polit Sci 12(4):385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaspers K (1953) Tragedy is not enough. Gallancy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson P (1993) Politics, innocence and the limits of goodness. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Kis J (2008) Politics as a moral problem. Central European University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Machiavelli N (1998) The prince (trans: Mansfield HC). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Mendus S (1988) The serpent and the dove. Philosophy 63(245):331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morris H (1976) On guilt and innocence: essays in legal philosophy and moral psychology. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Sartre JP (1989) Les mains sales. In: No exit and three other plays. Vintage International, New York, pp 125–242Google Scholar
  25. Shakespeare W (1964) In: Craig W (ed) The complete works. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Shklar JN (1984) Ordinary vices. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Shue H (2006) Torture in dreamland: disposing of the ticking bomb. Case West Reserv J Int Law 37(2/3):231–239Google Scholar
  28. Shue H (2009) Making exceptions. J Appl Philos 26(3):307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shugarman DP (2000a) Introduction: the controversy over dirty hands. In: Rynard P, Shugarman DP (eds) Cruelty and deception: the controversy over dirty hands in politics. Broadview Press, London, pp 11–23Google Scholar
  30. Shugarman DP (2000b) Democratic dirty hands? In: Rynard P, Shugarman DP (eds) Cruelty and deception: the controversy over dirty hands in politics. Broadview Press, London, pp 229–250Google Scholar
  31. Stocker M (1990) Plural and conflicting values. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Stocker M (2000) Dirty hands and ordinary life in politics. In: Rynard P, Shugarman DP (eds) Cruelty and deception: the controversy over dirty hands in politics. Peterborough, Broadview Press; Australia, Pluto Press, pp 27–42Google Scholar
  33. Walzer M (1973) Political action: the problem of dirty hands. Philos Public Aff 2:160–180Google Scholar
  34. Walzer M (1977) Just and unjust wars. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams B (1978) Politics and moral character. In: Hampshire S (ed) Public and private morality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams B (2002) In the beginning was the deed: realism and moralism in political argument. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Wittgenstein L (1958) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations