At the beginning of the
semester we discussed the concept of dirty hands, but it was not until last
week while watching my favorite show, Dexter, that I applied the concept to a
part of my life. Dexter Morgan is the main Character in the Showtime series Dexter. Dexter plays the role of a man
who has inherited the uncontrollable impulse to kill after witnessing the
bloody murder of his mother as a child. He calls his impulse his “dark
passenger”, which forces him to kill people throughout the show. However, he
does not kill just anyone, but those who “deserve” to die. Dexter works as the
blood splatter analyst for the Miami Metro Police department and investigates
suspects of murders who slip through the cracks of the legal system. Before
making a kill, he makes sure the suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Dexter Trailer: Try not to get sucked in!
To apply the idea of dirty
hand let us first discuss the concept of “dirty hands”. In simple terms, the
concept of dirty hands is defined as performing an action that may be wrong or
morally wrong in order to obtain the greater good. The main component of this
concept that gives the enactor dirty hands rather than the label of a criminal
is that his or her action was preformed for the greater good. Throughout
history we have seen many men perform actions, which have given them dirty
hands. An example of a man with dirty hands is Harry Truman and the atomic bomb. President Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima
and Nagasak, killing over two thousand people, both military and civilian. This
was undoubtedly a morally wrong action, but it was for the greater good, saving
many lives and ending the Japanese threat. However, other men such as Hitler
have dirtied their hands by committing morally wrong actions, but not for the
greater good. Therefore, such men are criminals or threats to society.
Should this be Dexter?
The question is, do Dexter’s
actions give him dirty hands or make him a threat to society?
Dexter channels his desire
to kill by only killing those who deserve to die, that is, those who have
killed innocent people. Often theses are people who he proves to be guilty of
killing someone but were not convicted by the law. In this way, Dexter commits
the immoral action of killing someone, but does it for the greater good of
society as he prevents the killing of future innocent people.
Possible Candidate for Dexter's Table
However, Dexter did not
begin to kill in order to exterminate murders, but to appease his urges and the
dark passenger within. In this way Dexter could begin to fall out of the
classification of having dirty hands and may be viewed as a threat to society,
as he is acting in his own self-interest rather than the greater interest of
society.
Can someone have both dirty
hands and act in his or her personal interest?
Using Dexter as an example of dirty hands was a fantastic idea. I personally do not watch the show, but I certainly have heard of it. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that someone can have dirty hands while still acting in his or her personal interest. In fact, I believe we see this concept all the time. Personal gain is a huge factor that influences not only the dirty hands concept, but life in general. Whether referring to leaders of nations, or even ourselves in everyday lives, the dirty hands vs. personal gain concept is quite prevalent. In terms of politics, we see it time and time again, even if we don't necessarily notice it at first. For example, Mitt Romney, Republican presidential nominee, has "flip-flopped" on issues such as gun control, healthcare, and the environment. This lying is immoral, yet Mitt Romney does this for personal gain, or more specifically, the gain of voters. However, Romney believes he is doing the public a greater good by lying. If elected, he thinks that he would increase the success of America and the well-being of its people. Obviously this is not true in the eyes of all voters, but it is the dirty hands concept mixed with personal gain nonetheless. The President is not free from dirty hands either. For example, he signed off on killing Osama bin Laden. Of course bin Laden was the epitome of scum, but Obama still authorized the killing of a human being. However, he believed that this was necessary, and would benefit the vast majority of people. Still, we are fools if we believe that Obama has not reaped the benefits of personal gain from this. He regularly brings it up during debates to express his presidential successes, attempting to persuade potential voters. Beyond politics, we see dirty hands in the business world all the time. Whether on Wall Street or in small businesses, CEOs make decisions to try and benefit their whole company. For instance, in times of crisis, massive layoffs must occur. The CEO will fire many low-level employees in order to raise revenue to ensure the company stays afloat. However, this decision is not just for the company. The CEO does this to ensure his own job security and wealth. If he only wanted the company to survive, why not fire upper-level employees or even himself, who has the highest pay? Thus, dirty hands and personal gain is seen again. Regardless of what one may think, the dirty hands issue is incredibly subjective to individual interpretation.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I just want to say that I love the show Dexter and I cannot believe that I didn't think of this correlation before! Dexter Morgan is a very applicable subject for the question of the dirty hands problem. You ask if it is possible for someone to be have dirty hands while still acting for their own personal gain. I believe that yes, this is possible, however Dexter does not fall into this category. In order for a person to have dirty hands while still acting in their own best interest, there needs to be a hierarchy of what this person's motivations are. Serving the greater good must come first and foremost, with personal gain being a far second. Using this criteria, Dexter Morgan would not be considered to have dirty hands. He began his 'ritual' to relieve his dark passenger and appear as though he is a normal part of society. His father forced upon him the set (Harry's Code) of criteria someone has to meet in order to be a victim of Dexter's dark passenger. Without the guidance of his father, Dexter probably would not be killing only those who have done wrong to society and deserve punishment.
ReplyDeleteWhen examining a dirty hands problem, the motivations of the person acting must be first examined. They must be primarily acting for (at least what they believe) the good of the state, society, group, what have you. If personal gain comes along with that action then great, but it cannot be the first priority.
I completely agree in saying that Dexter is a good candidate to apply the "dirty hands" concept to. By killing people, he is essentially saving more peoples' lives and he is gaining something from it (seeing his mother being killed, having the satisfaction of wiping these people off of the earth). He saves others lives by taking this immoral action. It's better for society.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the point about Harry Truman. I do agree with you when you say he had dirty hands when doing this and it was immoral and wrong. I also agree that it was an essential part of ending the Japanese threat and also saving lives of Americans and many other countries that were threatened by Japan. I do not, however, believe that he saved more lives than he killed or that these lives were more important. Yes, they were American lives and he was protecting his citizens; but many innocent lives were lost in Japan. It's hard to look at it at a civilian or American citizen point of view because of course you want to side with your country, but no one can judge if they would have "dirtied their hands" in that situation. Harry Truman decided to do this for a reason and it changed America and even the world forever. Sometimes I think, like in Dexter's case, and in Harry Truman's case, it is essential to dirty your hands so your people are protected and a greater risk to society is eliminated by you doing that than your individual action actually is.
To the article, I undoubtedly agree that Dexter faces the dirty hands concept and provides a greater benefit to society as a whole, stopping the evils that inhabit Dexter's world. However, I also picture some people that may reply cynically that evil will always persist. For instance, if Dexter kills a serial killer named Bob, affiliations to Bob will obviously feel impacted, and Bob's legacy may be carried on to more people. Obviously, this comes in rare cases but nonetheless, it is still a possibility we have to address.
DeleteThe Harry Truman example lists one issue from the "dirty hands" problem, but yet I can think of another example that could be debatable among different people. People who believe that the bomb should not have dropped have to realize that the Americans had been dealing with the Japanese problem for a while; they had been considering other options to end the war. If they had never dropped the bomb, Americans possibly could have suffered more casualties than the Japanese from the Hiroshima bomb if the war was extended much longer. In that case, dropping the bomb would have been the better option. But we will never know, because it was probably close to impossible in determining when the war would end, and could never go back in time and change what happened. In the end, it's debatable of the extent how right that Truman was allowed to "dirty" his hands.
I love the relation of Dexter Morgan to the problem of Dirty Hands. To answer your question simply, no I do not think someone can have dirty hands and be acting in their own personal interest. Walzer makes a clear distinction between men who are "bad" and ill intentioned, and men who have good intentions but the ability to do bad things in order to achieve their desires. Dexter Morgan is purely self interested, as much as I love him. He may use the "I'm bettering society excuse" to justify his actions for himself, but that is not genuine. It was an innocent way for him to channel desires he knew he could not get rid of; it was not his way of enhancing the greater Miami area so that he can sleep better at night.
ReplyDeleteNice connection between Dexter and the DIrty Hands Problem. In effect he does kill other more dangerous people to avoid more deaths in the future. One question I would ask is who is Dexter to be able to decide such decisions of who to kill? I realize that he has intelligence made available to the Police and it's officers, but should his moral values stand for everyone else?To answer your question of whether it is possible to act in your self interest while operating under the dirty hands model, i believe it is. Operating under the dirty hands model suggests that the operator's motives are for the greater good. Although the greater good does not pertain to just the operator, he is a part of the people and whats good for others usually is good for him as well.On top of that, I dont think someone would follow the dirty hands model and the risk that comes with it unless there was a personal gain in the end. Like Hobbes believed, most people are greedy and act in their own self interest, suggesting that someone with dirty hands is helping out their own cause.
ReplyDeleteI have never actually watched a full episode of Dexter but from what Ive heard about it and read in your blog I do believe that someone can simultaneously have dirty hands and act on their own personal interests. If you look at most cases of Dirty Hands the person whose hands are ultimately dirtied do benefit from their decision in the end, and therefore are acting on their own personal interests. If you look at President Truman's dropping of the atomic bomb, he determined that ending the war was for the greater good. However this decision also benefitted Truman himself: the war ended, and he was later elected to serve his own full term as president.
ReplyDeleteAlso if you were to examine Dexter himself I feel like you can come to the same conclusion. While by killing, Dexter is feeding his own self interest, he is also aiding society beyond the fact that he is taking criminals off the streets. If he were to ignore his blood thirst not only would criminals that slipped through the cracks remain on the streets, but whose to say how many more people Dexter would kill when he can no longer suppress his "dark passenger." By "feeding" his dark impulses Dexter is acting for the greater good, as he is preventing a kind of uncontrollable murdering binge.