A finale

So, due to an unforeseen series of events, I need to go with my roommate to the cities tomorrow to help him decide on a place to live this summer. (Technically I don't -have- to go, but I told him I would help him a while ago and if he doesn't go on Thursday, he probably will not get the place he wants) Thus, I will not be able to enjoy Sheri's yummy treats, fill out the course evaluation, and more pressingly, express my overall view of the topics this class addresses. I hadn't truly thought about the progress I've made in terms of ethical thinking until recently, and it's sort of astonishing that my views could have changed so much just by using case studies which refute them or support them, and theoretical readings that raise hidden points I'd never thought of.

I'm sure that the discussion somehow will turn itself to the dirty hands argument. I came into class thinking that politicians were mainly dirty because of the system that is in place, and whereas it might not be the specific dirty hands issue we have addressed, it is a variation. When we read the Walzer reading about dirty hands, it became more apparent that dirty hands might be needed in the end, following that it is a requirement to fit into the system in order to be productive. To say the least, I was excited that my view of political ethics seemed to be the dilemma we would be addressing in the class. After many debates about the morality of lies, interrogation, inequality, torture, war, and the list goes on; after many debates about these issues, I think I can safely conclude that people who hold public office must get their hands dirty in order to be successful. Any cited case where this wasn't true just isn't statistically likely(i.e. there is hidden dirt, nobody is perfect, especially politicians)

I also realized that people blow things way too far out of proportion. Look at the cases of Justice Thomas and Bill Clinton. Who cares, honestly, if they did some shady business in their past life? It just seems like a weak approach to attack person hood rather than efficiency. If they are good at what they do, then by all means why can't we let them do it, and not criticize them for why they might not be the best person for the job? It just aggravates me when most of the propaganda fed to us during campaigns is personal, at least in some respect, rather than relating to the matters at hand, and with little or no background information to judge whether that specific situation was actually good or bad. The unity of virtues argument did not fly well with me, as I think that people compartmentalize more than they think. I personally do it all of the time, and whereas I am not a public official, if it is possible in personal life to do this, why not public life?

People lie, public officials lie, and they should be allowed to. Look at the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, had lies not been a part of this, who knows what our present would have looked like. I don't like the fact that the government should feel the need to lie to me, but if lying is a peacekeeping mechanism, by all means lie. If there no conflict because somebody lied to you about an issue as opposed to the great violence that ensues after lies are uncovered or if people straight up tell the truth, I'd much rather take the lying. The government itself is a key to all of the world's secrets, and it is hard to deny that fact, and equally hard to try to change it.

I think I've become a more ends-based thinker, rather than a means-based one. So long as in the end, it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and the ends to be achieved can actually be achieved through these means, I am all for it. This does entail some pretty shady business that most would argue is unethical, but for a thousand years of prosperity in the form of happiness, why not? But seriously, it is hard to have just means that produce an actual end, likewise it is hard to have a just end without promoting some sort of shady means.

On a similar note, another realization I came to is I'm not so much for equality as I thought I was. I mean, sure, it seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice, I don't think I'd want a system that has equal everything. I like the ability to say that I worked hard for something, and thus I deserve more stuff as a reward. Think of it this way: If everyone were exactly and precisely equal in terms of say, economic wealth, then where exactly do we draw the line? Soon after total equality happens with regard to prosperity, health care, and education, there will be a push for equality in athletic ability, in intellectual ability, and ultimately a striving for the complete equality of man through some new-aged genetic means.

Thus, with a combination of many of these things, I arrived at the conclusion that my views are a little more out there than normal. I seem to root for the 'bad guys': promoting secrecy, using any means necessary to achieve a peaceful end, striving for inequality, capitalism, and in the end, rooting for dirty hands. Great leaders who appear to possess the most pristine hands of them all, and praised for this, are my favourite, since they have proven that it is possible to concele the dirt under layers and layers of ethical acts. All in all, I think that the dirty hands argument holds up, at least to the extent that dirty hands are necessary to be a successful politician.