Philisophical Musings on the "Good Life" and the problem of "Dirty Hands"

I did not watch the Inauguration of the new American President, although it seemed that's what many others were doing yesterday, in my facebook community, in the world of blog, in the online news sources I religiously read. I'm not quite sure what Obama said, and, to be truthful, although I'm still ecstatic that a black man was elected, a historic event, to be sure, and one that brings hope to many of the dispossessed, marginalized, colonized people of the world, I'm getting to feel a little jaded about the man himself. Not that he's not marvelous. Just that I wish he was a little bit more liberal, a little bit more of a social democrat. I read a blog the other day, citing a news article saying Obama supported Prop 8 in Cali. Yuck. Don't be a hater, is all I gotta say.

And then this morning I read one of my favorite blogs, Living the Frugal Life. The author, Kate, did watch the inauguration. And she had the following criticisms. She disagreed that we need to choose between safety and "our ideals" which she interpreted to mean freedom. In her counter-argument, she quotes Benjamin Franklin: "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both." She further disagrees that we do not need to apologise for our "way of life" and argues that the [North] American way of life is both excessive and hideously impoverished. Good arguments, Kate!!

Kate's post reminds me of my last assignment in my Philosophy class this semester, titled Ethics & Public Policy. We were discussing the problem of Dirty Hands. This is when a government (or a person) must make a choice between what is right (in a utilitarian sense) and what is moral. Thus, an example would be a political leader who must choose to condemn a person to torture in the hopes that said person will reveal the location of a bomb that will likely kill hundreds or even thousands of people. The utilitarian argument is that the right thing to do is to save the hundreds of people, and torture the individual who may or may not have knowledge of the location of the bomb. Thus, by ordering the torture of said individual, the politician now has Dirty Hands.

The assignment was to describe the problem of Dirty Hands, using Pinochet, the Chilean military dictator, as an example. However, now I see examples everywhere. My man and I are watching the Jessica Alba TV series, Dark Angel. Every episode I have seen so far could be an example of Dirty Hands! This is because the utilitarian arguments that resolve the problem of Dirty Hands do so by declaring that it just isn't a problem. By doing what is right for the majority, the moral dilemma disappears. But how can this be, in the era of international human rights? I argue that this just isn't so.

We always have a choice to do what is moral. Thus, in my torture/bomb example, I say it is perfectly acceptable to take the moral high ground, and refuse to torture one individual person, even if it could possibly save thousands. Consider this: what if the individual really knows nothing about the bomb? Then, the ends do not justify the means. They only do so if the individual has knowledge of the location of the bomb, and if the bomb can be defused in time to prevent harm to anyone. My problem with utilitarian arguments is that they use people as means. I protest. I say this is both immoral and unjust. I say this becomes the tyranny of the majority, and it's what justifies ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust. I say we have to retain our moral values, or we are lost.

But back to Kate's post. Choosing between safety and freedom looks like a problem of Dirty Hands to me. Politicians decide it is okay to take away people's liberty so as to ensure their safety? Okay, it sounds familiar. That is what I do with my child nearly every day. But he is a child, and he is (currently) incapable of assuring his own safety. But that is because he is a child, and I fully expect him to progress, in developmental terms, to a point where I no longer need to be responsible for his safety. I'm hoping that comes in the teen years, when he progresses to formal operational thought. However, I don't think it works to treat nations as children. Thus, paternalistic attitudes towards Third World countries, or to one's own population, are just plain insulting. As Franklin said, if we give up liberty, we don't deserve it. And, if we knowingly take liberty from others, we threaten our own.