Tragedy in CT: When is it Time to Change Traditions?

-->

The U.S Constitution, ratified in 1788 has been the backbone to the creation of the strongest country in the world. The writings of the constitution implemented ideas from the founding fathers, ideas still central to the way the government operates today. 

Yet, with the horrible and tragic news coming from Newtown, Connecticut I would like to revisit the 2^nd amendment; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This reminded me of Edmund Burke who endorsed tradition in his conservatism, and believed that traditions would benefit the country. Personally, I think it’s fine if a normal person decided to purchase a gun to keep them safe or hunt (I wouldn’t buy a gun for either). But what defines a normal person? So far in 2012 there have been multiple killings (Aurora, Newtown and many others), by mentally unstable citizens of the U.S. How could you sell a gun to a person whom you have no idea about? 

With these recent acts it seems as though new gun control legislation is paramount in an effort to bring back peace and comfort to many Americans who must now fear being gunned down or having loved ones killed by loose cannons. It seems that in light of today’s unfathomable tragedy that some change will be made, as various politicians have been releasing statements, such as New York mayor Bloomberg who is condemned current gun laws earlier today. The real question that stands is: when is it time to change traditions that have stood for so long?

Kids are shuffled to safety after the horrfific shooting at
Sandy Hook.

Works Cited:

Burke

Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 
Constitution. Web. 14 Dec. 2012. <http://www.constitution.org/eb/ rev_fran.htm>. 

Candiotti, Susan. "Police: 20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school 
shooting." CNN. CNN, 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 14 Dec. 2012. 
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1>.

Media:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/14/sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting-gunman-killed-_n_2301269.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

http://patriotpost.us/documents/82

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2012/12/gun-control-the-second-prohibition/

The End Into A Beginning

So now that we've essentially completed this course, I've taken a moment to reflect on the very first topic we had brought up "political" factors in: How important are grades according to the 3 theories? From a very quick search into google, 3 out of 3 links tell the story that the world mostly accepts the 2nd theory, which focuses that it is more important students are learning what they can rather than focus intently with obtaining good grades.

What is the true worth of this?

The first article mainly addresses that fact that grades are only there to demonstrate that you are not "slacking off". In fact, job markets understand that students are also busy with extracurriculars during their college career and grades mean different things across different universities based on their reputation. Thus, "all other factors held constant, an employer is more likely to choose the candidate with stellar grades, but that doesn't mean a so-so student can't land a competitive job with a prestigious company." In a nutshell, employers look upon what the individual directly has to show about the job, not upon another factor (in this case, school) because it says little about the individual's ability to work. People that support the 1st theory would probably reply that individuals are responsible for maintaining their grades with their extracurricular and that there is still a slight advantage undoubtedly. Rationally, I would have to agree with the 2nd theory in this case, because I see college as exploring topics and our interests, but grades are there just to make sure we don't have too much fun.

This will say more, in the end.

The second article gives slightly different reasons for justifying the 2nd theory, but it is along similar lines. We are all different, so grades are a difficult method to pinpoint who is truly smarter in what sense. Truly, it is work experience that tells anything about an individual's ability to work for a company, though grades still do give a very rough estimate of what someone can do. Besides, schools are meant for us to learn, that is what schools are meant to do and what we pay our money for. The list of additional reasons goes on and on, but the main point still goes along with the 2nd theory: we really should be learning.

I've learned a great deal in this class, and I loved it; the 2nd theory is much more feasible to me because personally I enjoy new things. So folks, get out there and learn and live a life; you will appreciate and cherish yourself a lot more. Good luck!

Sources:
Pictures - http://www.utulsa.edu/tulawblog/?p=304
               http://www.newmanagement.com/tips/job_app.html

The Problem with Property

The definition of property according to Locke is a bit different than the one given by Merriam-Webster dictionary. "Property" according to Locke is described as a claim against other people about a right to the continued use, possession and disposal of some object (could be land, etc., doesn’t have to be an object), whether such object is currently in the possession of or in use by the owner or not [lecture, 10/10]. The concept of property, in Locke's philosophy, is more about a claim to something rather than the legal ownership of it, typically referring to land. In Locke's state of nature there is no sense of individual property or divided ownership; everything is communal. Obviously, the world we live in is far from the state of nature; we live in a world where it's accepted for success and greed to be someone's main priority. This is a social norm that I don't believe will ever be escaped.

Regardless of our priorities out of the state of nature, our notion of property is a bit more cut and dry than that of Locke's. If we say that something is our property - we mean that we own it. We possess the deed or legal document that the property is in our name (I'm mainly talking about homes, land, cars, etc.). The tricky part comes in when we start to discuss intellectual property. It's not so cut and dry anymore. Other than patents - a long and tedious process to get - there is no legal documentation to say that an idea was yours. It's very possible that someone came up with the same brilliant idea at the same time. There's no way to buy someone else's idea, we can buy the right to someone else's intellectual property... but the idea is still the original person's no matter what.

Lawsuits regarding intellectual property happen all the time in the US. Someone wants to sue someone else because they believe that an idea or concept was not original or the initial person's intellectual property. It all becomes very messy because there can be no real proof of someone's thoughts. Yes, witnesses can be brought to the stand, evidence can be brought to light but there's no real way of knowing who's idea is who's. According to Locke, the notion of intellectual property is defined as whoever had the original idea is the owner of said intellectual property. It can be spread on the authority of the original person who had the idea.


One of the most recent publicized cases of intellectual property 'theft' is seen in the film, Social Network. In the film, the Winklevoss twins are suing Mark Zuckerberg for 'stealing' their idea for "The Facebook". The case took six years to settle, click here for the NY Times article. They were feuding over who had the idea first. It took so long simply because intellectual property is such a gray area that no one really can know the answer.


In the two videos, the conflict of intellectual property is discussed and argued about. As simple as it may sound, a large part of the battle is 'getting there first' as the first video displays. If an
idea is acted on before anyone else can think of it, there is no one to dispute if that is your intellectual property or not.

There's no question that intellectual property can be a hazy subject, it seems to have different criteria than physical property does. But according to Locke, they are essentially the same: our property is a claim of something against other people. Our ideas, thoughts, intellectual property (whatever you want to call it) is a claim to something against others and should be respected as such.

Videos:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihGQKXC7ORE
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFFtpd8VNN0

Locke and the Fiscal Cliff

President Obama and Governor Romney

If you followed the recent Presidential election chances are you've heard a little bit about the economy. We all know that it is not in the best shape, and most of us know that part of President Obama's plan to fix the economy is to raise taxes for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.  But a lot of us don't know that in his Second Treatise, John Locke discussed a very similar issue.

John Locke

In his Second Treatise, John Locke discusses the idea of property, and how people come to own it along with how much they should own.  He gives an example using apples; he states that a person should collect as many apples as he or she can reasonably use, but should not collect any more than that to avoid waste.  A person should not collect too many apples, because as Hobbes put it, God did not put anything on this Earth for men to destroy.  So basically, he states that people should not be greedy.  If we take this example and replace apples with money we see a situation much like what we have in the United States today.

Obviously, some people are poor and some people are rich.  Some do not have enough money, and some have more money than they can spend.  Even though money cannot go rotten like apples can, it seems unnecessary that certain people have much of their wealth sitting in an account untouched.  So why do these people pay a smaller percent of their money to the government than those who only have as much money as they need?  

This guy has too much money

While the fiscal cliff addresses many issues, not just the issue of raising taxes for the rich, this is by far the most publicized and debated solution.  Earlier today, President Obama spoke in Detroit and said "When you put it all together, what you need is a package that keeps taxes where they are for middle-class families; we make some tough spending cuts on things that we don’t need; and then we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a slightly higher tax rate."  Locke would completely agree with the President on this issue.  Those who have just as much as they need, the middle class, should continue to have as much as they need, without compromising a large portion of it.  Those who have more than they need, the upper class, should not be greedy with their property; they should give up a larger portion of their wealth for the benefit of society.

Presumably, higher taxes for the rich will be implemented when the Bush tax cuts expire on January 1st.  Without a doubt, there will be backlash, and the President will have to argue for his views often.  At times he may feel alone, so hopefully he knows that John Locke would be on his side.

Sources:
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1001&bih=617&tbm=isch&tbnid=UOYSWJi-ehShFM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ntn24.com/news/news/obama-romney-clash-economy-fir-18288&docid=0nOwqYtSBFfs3M&imgurl=http://www.ntn24.com/news/sites/default/files/imagecache/320x240/c-romney_obama_debate_1349315145.jpg&w=320&h=240&ei=-rbGUN70IIemqAHniICgAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=276&dur=443&hovh=192&hovw=257&tx=97&ty=130&sig=110577162859244510427&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=196&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:101

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1001&bih=617&tbm=isch&tbnid=xIT1rXzizuKCKM:&imgrefurl=http://williamhogeland.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/facebook-locke-and-privacy/&docid=YhTSilAMEX_w7M&imgurl=http://williamhogeland.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/locke.jpg&w=650&h=867&ei=X7fGUOirL4euqQHdo4D4Aw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=543&vpy=132&dur=445&hovh=260&hovw=194&tx=86&ty=105&sig=110577162859244510427&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=105&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:154

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1001&bih=617&tbm=isch&tbnid=1JDwaB2yUoZqzM:&imgrefurl=http://www.bellybillboard.com/new-study-shows-rich-people-are-assholes/&docid=RUl8tLKaxmtMDM&imgurl=http://www.bellybillboard.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/richguy.jpg&w=630&h=354&ei=7bjGUJb-C8WRqgGt4YDYAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=441&vpy=339&dur=1207&hovh=169&hovw=300&tx=167&ty=156&sig=110577162859244510427&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=239&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0,i:128

The Gay Rights Movement and Being an American as Defined by Malcolm X

I've seen a lot of blog posts that relate Malcolm X and his definition of being American with other minority groups that don't have certain rights, mainly concerning the gay community.  First of all, I would like to say that I am a proponent of equal rights for everyone.  I don't think it's fair that my gay friends don't have the same rights that I do, simply because of their preferences.  However, I do think that this matter is extremely difficult to navigate and that the answer is not as clear cut as people sometimes make it out to be.

The issue of gay rights has become increasingly more prominent in the past decade or so.  It has gained the support of many, including that of the current President of the United States.  Videos such as the "Gay Men will Marry Your Girlfriends" video have received a great amount of views and the movement continues to gain momentum.  The fact that they are being denied their rights is being equivalated to even the Civil Rights Movement, with arguments that "20 years from now, our children will be shocked that we didn't allow gay couples the right to marriage."  And they may be right in doing so.  As Malcolm X stated, an American shouldn't have to fight for American rights.

The rainbow has become a symbol representing the gay rights movement.  

(Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/dadt-repeal-_n_798764.html)

Marriage is a weird concept, because it is both regulated by the church and the government.  In a country where the importance of separation of church and state to society has become increasingly prominent, marriage is the one thing that still blurs the line between the two.  The way I see it, the majority of arguments against same-sex marriage are based on religion: "The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, so gay marriage is wrong."  The arguments for gay marriage are the opposite:  "The state issues marriage licences, so religion shouldn't have any say in who gets to get married."  Right now, marriage happens in both civil and religious ceremonies.  This is where the conflict comes in.  Who gets to decide what defines a marriage?  What makes this even more complicated is the fact that different areas have different laws for marriage.  Currently in the US, 9 states allow same-sex marriages along with Washington DC.  A few other states and areas recognize them.  The fact that the laws are not consistent allow for a whole new level of discrepancy.  The fight to define marriage has been chronicled in public, as some people argue for the dictionary definition of marriage and others argue for marriage as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act.

This is where things are going to get a little far-fetched: perhaps the solution is to make marriage a completely religious matter. Being married should not affect the benefits that a couple gets from the government at all.  In addition, however, there should be a government equivalent to marriage, something that doesn't have anything to do with the religious concept, but instead deals with the rights and benefits of being someone's spouse.  The major issues that I hear about today are how soldiers in a gay relationship don't get the same rights as a soldier in a straight relationship in regards to parental benefits, or that a person in a gay relationship doesn't get to choose what happens to their partners, should their partners be ill and unable to decide for themselves.  Whether this (with lots of fine tuning and revising, I'm sure) has the potential of working is something that I'm actually curious about.  This could eliminate the the need to fight for rights as an American.  Everyone could be treated equally as an American in this aspect.  But what is more important?  Being able to call the relationship a marriage or being given the rights that marriage currently allows you to have?  If the first was what was important, this proposal would not work at all.  If it's the second, though, maybe this has a chance of making everyone happy.  The "sanctity of marriage" wouldn't be a matter in this case.  I realise, however, that I'm being incredibly idealistic when I say that there are two distinct categories.  I'm well aware of the fact that for most couples, both are probably important to them.

Don't Be Afraid to Stand Up!

I left class today with the Martin Luther King’s quote “an unjust law is no law at all.” Such a powerful statement, that inspired me to write my last blog post. We live in a world where we are supposed to follow the rules laid out by our parents, our teachers, and authority (cops). However, in terms of abiding by the government, just because some set of rules is deemed to be a law, does not necessarily mean it is the “right,” fair, or honorable guideline controlling societal behaviors. Martin Luther King promoted the idea of following some laws, not all laws, which I think is extremely relevant no matter what era you are in; it is a valuable piece of information when analyzing the past and living in the present. There will always be laws or rules that could be perfected and it’s crucial to recognize the changes that need to be made, but more importantly to ACT on those necessary changes. Without fearless individuals who rebel against injustice, what kind of world would we live in? I can tell you right now, I would not want to live in a world where people didn’t stand up for what they believed in or spoke out against unfair measures.

            The pure fact that a law is a law isn’t enough. Similarly, just because a cop is a cop, doesn’t necessarily mean he or she should be a cop. Crooked cops can be compared to unjust laws, because cops are figures that are supposed to be praised, while just, moral laws are rules that are supposed to be highly regarded and followed. However, some cops and some laws do not serve their purpose, specifically crooked cops and unjust laws are misrepresentations. It is inexcusable to allow oppressive laws exist as well as crooked cops get away with inhumane, unprofessional behavior.

            Martin Luther King is an inspirational icon, whose courage reminds us not to lose sight of our own power, and our ability to make a mark on the world. We cannot live life without questioning laws or authority. We must always remember not to blindly accept laws or orders, instead we must challenge things and form our own opinions. Life is too short to just accept things that aren’t right or don’t provide positives.     

 

            I want to close with a Martin Luther King quote I love; “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Be proud of what you believe in and make a difference!

Sources:

Quote: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/martin_luther_king_jr

picture: http://galadarling.com/article/10-really-easy-ways-you-can-love-yourself-more-today

On Politics as a Science

I was pretty intrigued by how I would like this course and how I would come to understand something like Political Science. It's a little different for me because I'm majoring in Mathematics and Economics, which are a lot more objective, I suppose. Generally, there's a right answer in those. Or, at least, there's decision-procedure-type mechanism that gives you the principles to dry and derive the right answer. The exception is some questions in economics, but I'll just say that Political Science is not very similar to more quantitative disciplines like math or economics.

Even though I do like Mathematics and such, I really enjoy reading - like, constantly. And it was really interesting to read the original texts of people like Machiavelli, Hobbes, and JS Mill. It allowed me to do a lot of things that I will continue to outline below.

I really enjoyed this class a lot. Part of the appeal for me was that there wasn't a clearly defined decision procedure, and very rarely a completely correct answer (like the sum of 2 and 2). This was awesome, it encouraged me to think about different contemporary problems through different scopes - whether it was Machiavelli's conception of a "Prince" or by assessing the "Justice" of an action according to Dr. King or by thinking about the complete liberty advocated by JS Mill. Needless to say a lot of the people that we read samples from and talked about would not have gotten along (Burke and Mill arguing each other, etc.)

But, most of all, I liked that this class advocated all different theories. And that none of them were right (I don't think). That's not to say I didn't support some or didn't dislike some others, but I did come to appreciate each argument and see that every theory has reasonable groundwork. This is evident by an example: communism (or marxism). They aren't the same thing! I came to realize that some parts of Marxism could actually be desirable, but then again they'd be hard to implement or are only good on the surface. Or something like Free Speech. Now I understand (better) the arguments that can be made against free speech, even though I do support free speech. I think it's important to know arguments and counterarguments and counter-counterarguments and on-and-on. This allows me to have stronger opinions and really explore my own opinions instead of only believing things on the surface, instead of really having a deeply held belief.

I appreciated this class because it allows me to do a lot of things that were talked about in the class in my everyday life, such as vote knowledgeably (somewhat!) in democratic elections.

And mostly it taught me to Sapere Aude.



Sources of pictures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolò_Machiavelli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

Just War Theory and Mean Girls

On the surface, just war theory may seem simple.  There are three parts to this theory.  Jus ad bellum refers to justice in going to war, and states that a force must have just cause, proper authority right intention, and the like on their side.  Jus in bello refers to justice in war.  While at war, soldiers must discriminate between civilians and combatants and make sure that they are following the rule of proportionality.  Jus post bellum refers to justice after war, and says that actions after war must be just as well.  The winning side must make sure that punishments are handled proportionally to the crime and that they, again, discriminate between civilians and soldiers.  If we delve deeper into its nuances, though, we start to see gray areas.  The idea of justice, as I have realised during the course of this class, is not always set.  Trying to define justice for war is even trickier.  The gray areas provide a wide breadth of topics for discussion.  And because it's always hilarious whenever anyone tries to relate the movie Mean Girls to an academic topic, I will do so now.

I am going to write this under the assumption that the majority people know about, and probably have seen, this movie.  But just for the people who have not, here is a quick summary:  Cady Herron is a teenage girl who is raised in Africa, and is home-schooled.  She moves to America and starts attending a high school.  As I'm sure most of you remember, high school is full of unnecessary drama and Cady slowly succumbs to the pettiness that is high school cliques.  If you would like to read a more detailed plot summary, you can do this here.

When her new friends Janice and Damien initially get her to "wage war" against "The Plastics," (or more specifically, Regina George, who is the power behind this exclusive group), it seems that they are doing it for a good cause.  The Plastics are mean to everyone else.  They exclude everyone and put other people down because they believe that they are better than everyone else.  They are malicious simply for the sake of being malicious.  So it seems that jus ad bellum is being practiced in this case.  According to just war theory, Cady and her friends must maintain their right intention throughout the entire "war".

However—as this clip showed—over the course of "war," Cady's intentions change.  They are no longer for the good of all but for selfish reasons.  Even though Cady and her friends first started out with seemingly good intentions, it's clear that jus ad bellum was not applied all the way through in going to war.

And as the movie progresses, the way in which they conduct themselves "during war" is not exactly just either; there is no discrimination of civilians and combatants, to the extent that no one knows who is fighting and who is not, nor is there proportionality to the acts that these girls commit in "war":

I think it's safe to say that this movie is a prime example of the fact that although someone could enter war with all the right intentions, justice can get a little messy along the way.  This is, of course, ignoring many other parts of just war theory.  We could very well argue that Cady and her friends were not practicing jus ad bellum at all, since they didn't have proper authority, nor did they publicly "declare war" against the Plastics either, although I'm sure it wouldn't have fit the context of the movie had someone suddenly broken out into an eloquent declaration such as when the US declared war on Germany during WWI or FDR's Pearl Harbor Address:

I'm sure something like the proper adherence to just war theory would have ruined the mood of the movie. 

Sources (in order): 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377092/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT8wMBeVffk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPYqRaOm1ak
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usofficialawardeclaration.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufoUtoQLGQY

What should Socrates have done?

The Death of Socrates - Jacque-Louis David
(Source: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art/resourcesb/dav_soc.jpg)

Was Crito right? Should Socrates have fled the city to carry on his teaching? To answer these questions I must first address Socrates' arguments against fleeing, including his notable discussion of early social contract theory. 

Socrates essentially had a get out of jail free card; Crito was already in his jail cell just waiting for Socrates to up and walk out. Why then would Socrates refuse such a tantalizing offer? For Socrates, it's about justice. He argues that injustice is never the correct course of action, even if it is in response to an injustice. So instead of "an eye for an eye" Socrates advocates to "turn the other cheek." He applies this value of his to his current situation by saying that to break Athens' laws and escape from prison would be an injustice. He then goes into why he is bound to Athens' laws, and what he says is essentially a basic form of social contract theory. Since he has tacitly agreed to be a member of the city of Athens and receive all of its protections and benefits, he has subjugated himself to its laws. He has therefore signed a social contract with Athens, and to break this contract would necessarily be unjust. Socrates refuses to leave, and Crito acquiesces and lets him have his way. 

Crito closing the eyes of Socrates
The Death of Socrates - Antonio Canova
(Source:http://www.bc.edu/bc_org
/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art
/resourcesb/dav_soc.jpg)

Socrates logic seems correct, and under normal circumstances it would be. If Socrates had murdered another Athenian and he was justly tried and convicted, then it would be unjust and a breach of contract to escape with Crito. In this scenario however, the state violated the contract by wrongfully convicting him to death. Since the state has not upheld their part of the contract, it is not unjust to not follow it. It is not an unjust act (him be wrongly convicted) being followed by another unjust act (him breaking the law and escaping). It is simply a change of terms. Now that the contract is nullified by the state breaking it, Socrates should have no qualms with making the rational and just decision. As Crito argues, Socrates has an obligation to take care of his children that necessitates his escape, so by ignoring this Socrates is really doing an injustice by letting himself be executed. 

So not only is Socrates not doing a just act by subjugating himself to the laws of Athens, he is fact doing an unjust act by not taking care of his children when he had the opportunity. It's hard to consider the decision Socrates made one of either morality or justice. Letting yourself be murdered by a corrupt government and not providing for your children? That's the opposite of justice. 

Double Agents and Dirty Hands

Weeks ago, we learned of a simple yet complex metaphor called the "Dirty Hands" problem, which basically questioned whether immoral actions used for the general greater good are justifiable in how much benefit we receive in the end versus the extent of immoral-ness the person must confront. We can see how the "Dirty Hands" issue can attract a lot of attention and debate in real life situations we face, and personally I find that the same concept is just as interesting and awe-inspiring in the media we see. Usually in the media, the concept itself is most prevalent in the hands of "double agents" (defined as those who pretend to be part of the evil organization, but are really working for the good or vice-versa) and is accompanied with plot twists and surprises to make the whole scene much more dramatic, but nevertheless it achieves a whole new level of excitement for viewers; the questioning of morals and actions in given situations generates similar feelings of tension and urgency anyone facing a "dirty hands" problem would undergo. So where in the media have I seen "dirty hands"? I would give you an answer with my top 2 examples: Snape and Splinter Cell.

Since Harry Potter is relatively popular, I will warn that there are spoilers ahead in order to explain the connection between this and the problem. In essence, Snape was portrayed for 6 whole books as what seems to be a  blatantly evil person who was working for the Death Eaters and Voldemort, who are the Wizardry world's enemies. It is not until the last, 7th book that it is revealed he was working for the good side all along because of the motive that he felt guilty for Lily's death and that he was a part of the Death Eaters. So how is this the "dirty hands" problem? We must realize that if Snape had to maintain his reputation with the evil side, he must prove that he is committed to their cause, and thus must antagonize their enemies who are basically the general good Wizards. There are many examples of what he did in this sense, but a prime example would be where Snape kills the Wizardry school's headmaster, Dumbledore. It is ironic because Dumbledore was one of Snape's "allies" all along; however, Snape had to "dirty his hands" and commit an immoral cause for a greater cause that was part of a prophecy for a better end. Snape, as a "double agent" must have had to question his actions during his undercover work, comparing the good that comes out of the immoral bad he puts into play. Unsurprisingly, this was one of the elements in the series that appealed to many fans because of how sudden and powerful effect of the plot twist, which was based off of the "dirty hands" problem.
Below is a clip (which also somewhat contains spoilers) that reveals Snape's motive of being a "double agent", which in turn revealed all of the implicit moral vs immoral decisions for a greater cause that Snape must have had to question during his involvement in the plot.

Even in video games, the "dirty hands" problem can exist. (I apologize ahead of time for those of you who are not video game fans, but this example is highly relevant in terms of the issue as well). This time, the background is that of an spy named Sam Fisher who works for an agency named "NSA" which is well known for undercover operations in the game's context. Initially, the agency purposefully sets him up with multiple crimes to send him into jail in order to inspect a jailmate who is part of an uprising terrorist organization called John Brown's Army (or JBA) that has increasing activity, befriend him, and infiltrate their organization as a terrorist and yet feed info to the NSA. Gamers are provided with the options to be more evil or more good, but must maintain a minimum level of trust with both sides to be able to progress through the whole game. Regardless what side you may take, Fisher is still placed into situations that exercise the "dirty hands problem"; these range from planting a bomb and whether or not you choose to secretly defuse it, or if you choose between executing JBA's enemies (which may or may not be against the NSA) or complete objectives in infiltration for the NSA. Of course, it's just a game, but real "double agents" like Sam would have to deal with the issue of killing innocent people including people on the good side that he works for. Sure in the end he defeats the terrorists as an awesome outcome, but how much betrayal, guilt, and immoral actions did he have to face? It is this level of intensity and urgency that makes the game appealing to its fans, because we see examples of "dirty hands" that double agents may face and the flexibility in choice makes the game worth playing many times.
Below is a video of an execution Fisher is ordered to deal with, which obviously will affect his trust between both sides. The owner of the video shows both scenarios whether or not you choose to kill the civilian, which allows us to compare the two outcomes. The first half of the video shows Fisher killing the civilian, and notice how he gains trust with the JBA for showing commitment and preserving reputation and loses trust with the NSA for committing an immoral crime. On the other hand in the second half of the video when Fisher does not kill the civilian, notice how Fisher gains trust with the NSA for following orders to not harm civilians, but loses trust with the JBA for suspicion against their cause. It's a choice, a "dirty hands" choice.

Sources
Pictures: http://www.photosshow.com/splinter-cell-double-agent/
             http://www.scifinow.co.uk/blog/severus-snape-voted-favourite-character-from-harry-potter-books/

Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MngJG8MNuA
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkNbq_tluZ0