‘Learning how not to be good’: Machiavelli and the standard dirty hands thesis

‘It is necessary to a Prince to learn how not to be good’. This quotation from Machiavelli’s The Prince has become the mantra of the standard dirty hands (DH) thesis. Despite its infamy, it features proudly in most conventional expositions of the dirty hands (DH) problem, including Michael Walzer’s original analysis. In this paper, I wish to cast a doubt as to whether the standard conception of the problem of DH—the recognition that, in certain inescapable and tragic circumstances an innocent course of action is unfeasible—fully captures Machiavelli’s message and its terrifying implications. In particular, I argue that the standard DH thesis is inadequately ‘static’: it conceives the conflict between ordinary morality and political morality as a stark, momentary and rare paradox of action—an anomaly disrupting the normality of harmony. As such it misconceives both the extent and the nature of the rupture between morality and politics. In this sense, the argument I shall advance does not just involve an exercise in the history of political thought. Rather, I want to suggest that, by virtue of its failure to take Machiavelli’s insights seriously, the standard DH thesis fails to live up to its purported capacity to capture the complexity and fragmentation of our moral cosmos and that, consequently, it is nothing more than a thinly veiled version of the idealism and monism it purports to reject.

Bellamy, A. (2009): A reply to my critics, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(3), pp. 541 -553.

Berlin, I (1981): The Originality of Machiavelli, in Against The Current: Essays in the His-tory of Ideas edited by H. Hardy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 20 - 73.

Berlin, I. (1990): The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas edited by H. Hardy. London: John Murray.

Casey, J. (1983): The Noble in A. P. Griffiths (ed.) Philosophy and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coady, C. A. J. (2008): Messy morality: The challenge of politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Coady, C. A. J. (2009): The problem of dirty hands. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. N. Zalta, (ed.), Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/dirty-hands (last accessed 15 October 2013).

Cunningham, A. P. (1992): The Moral Importance of Dirty Hands, Journal of Value Inquiry, 26 (2), pp.232 - 250.

Gowans, C. W. (2001): Innocence Lost: An examination of Inescapable Moral Wrongdoing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hampshire, S. (1989): Innocence and Experience. USA: Harvard University Press.

Hampshire, S. (2000): Justice is Conflict. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Hollis, M. (1982): Dirty Hands. British Journal of Political Science, 12(4), pp. 385 - 398.

Jaspers, K. (1953): Tragedy is not enough. London: Gallancy.

Johnson, P. (1993): Politics, Innocence and the Limits of Goodness. London: Routledge.
Kis, J. (2008): Politics as a moral problem. New York: Central European University Press.

Machiavelli, N. (1998): The Prince, translated by H. C. Mansfield. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mendus, S. (1988): The Serpent and the Dove. Philosophy, 63(245), pp. 331 - 343.

Morris, H. (1976): On Guilt and Innocence: Essays in Legal Philosophy and Moral Psychology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Sartre, J. P. (1989): Les Mains Sales in No exit and Three Other Plays. New York: Vintage International, pp.125 - 242.

Shakespeare, W. (1964): The Complete Works, edited by W. Craig. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shklar, J. N. (1984): Ordinary Vices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shue, H. (2006): Torture in dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37(2/3), pp. 231 - 239.

Shue, H. (2009): Making Exceptions. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 26(3), pp. 307 - 322.

Shugarman, D. P. (2000a): Introduction: The controversy over dirty hands, in P. Rynard & D. P. Shugarman (eds.), Cruelty and Deception: The controversy over dirty hands in Politics. London: Broadview Press, pp. 11 – 23.

Shugarman, D. P. (2000b): Democratic Dirty Hands? In P. Rynard & D. P. Shugarman (eds.), Cruelty and Deception: The controversy over dirty hands in Politics. London: Broadview Press, pp. 229 - 250.

Stocker, M. (1990): Plural and Conflicting Values, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Stocker, M. (2000): Dirty Hands and Ordinary Life in Politics in P. Rynard & D. P. Shugarman (eds.), Cruelty and Deception: The Controversy over Dirty Hands in Politics. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press; Australia: Pluto Press, pp. 27–42.

Walzer, M. (1973): Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2, pp. 160 – 180.

Walzer, M. (1977): Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books.

Wijze, S., de (1994): Dirty hands – doing wrong to do right. South African Journal of Philosophy, 13 (1), pp. 27 – 33.

Wijze, S., de (2005): Tragic Remorse: The anguish of Dirty Hands. Ethical and Moral Practice, 7, pp. 453-471

Wijze, S., de (2006): Torture and Liberalism. Democratiya, 7, pp. 1 - 22.

Wijze, S., de (2009): Targeted Killing: A “Dirty Hands” Analysis. Contemporary Politics, 15(3), pp. 305-320.

Wijze, S., de (2012): Punishing Dirty Hands- Three Justifications, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(5).

Wijze, S., de & Goodwin, T. L. (2009): Bellamy on Dirty Hands and Lesser Evils: A response, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(3), pp. 529- 540.

Williams, B. (1978): Politics and Moral Character, in S. Hampshire (ed.), Public and Private Morality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 55 – 73.

Williams, B. (2002): In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1958): Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.