The Problem of Dirty Hands
Suppose a political leader has an absolute political/governmental obligation to do what is absolutely morally wrong. The leader’s duty of statecraft requires a violation of moral duty. This is the so-called problem of dirty hands (PoDH) in moral and political philosophy.
For example, suppose a head of state has a solemn duty to protect the people of that state and the nation itself from an evil threat. This obligation cannot be avoided. As a matter of state, the leader has promised to protect you, your family, and your fellow citizens. Perhaps you have voted for and endorsed this leader and his (or her) promise. But to perform the duty, the leader must authorize military activity that is categorically wrong. Suppose the leader must approve the bombing of a military target that will destroy the evil threat but also cause a large number of unintended though foreseen civilian deaths.
Here’s a more precise articulation of the dilemma:
-- Either the leader authorizes the military activity or he does not authorize it.
-- If he authorizes the activity, he morally wrongs some persons (i.e., the civilians) who will be harmed by it.
-- If he does not authorize the activity, he morally wrongs the citizens he is obligated to protect.
-- Hence, either he wrongs the first group or the second group of people. Given his position and duties, he cannot avoid wronging some persons and thus can’t avoid getting his hands dirty.
Is the PoDH a genuine problem? If so, it’s a difficult one. What is the solution? I will propose some answers in a separate post. For now, see here for further discussion.
(By the way, this is both a conceptual problem and, therefore, one suitable for the philosopher’s attention and a practical moral and political problem that anyone might face in life -- though politicians are perhaps more likely to face such dilemmas.)