okay, uh, this week's topic is, um, is there a real moral dilemma, and we're going to talk about the issue of the problem of dirty hands by renowned political philosopher Michael Wal, um. The question is actually quite simple: Is there a case when one is morally required to do what is wrong first? Uh, take some time, uh, to appreciate the, the, the paradoxical, uh, content of this question, right? I mean, is there a case that you should do what is wrong? It is right to do what is wrong, okay? I mean, this is almost like, like, uh, self-denial. I mean, we talk, I mean, there's a notion of tautology, repeating the same thing, right? A chair is a chair, that must be true, right? We don't, we don't have to look outside to see that this sentence is true, mean the chair is chair, mean the, the sky is sky, right? You are, you, right? These areology, but, uh, the, the question here, P here, seems to be as the, the exact

opposite of toy. Is it right sometimes to do what is wrong? And surprisingly, Michael Walter's answer is yes. And I think if he follows the steps that he takes to reach this conclusion, I think we all have to agree with it. So that's the topic of the problem of dirty hand that we're going to discuss. First, let's talk about the notional moral dilemma. I mean, you are familiar with the notional moral dilemma. I don't think we need to actually delve into the notion because I assume you already know it, right? But the question is here, is there a real moral dilemma? Is there really the case where actually there are only two options and none of them is right? Okay, in some sense, you have to do something that you believe to be wrong, right? That's the notional moral. In some sense, some people might deny that there is a real moral dilemma. For example, utilitarians who deny that there's a real moral dilemma. I mean, the only problem with moral D, there's no real

moral dilemma. The problem is only that we don't have enough sufficient amount of data and sufficient amount of knowledge to predict what will happen if we take this option rather than that option, right? Then there's a certainly problem of epistemological problem to predict what will come out of this taking this option. Then of course, sometimes we will make a mistake, right? Because even though you wanted to maximize the utility, certainly your action will result in less than the best option. But utilitarian would deny that there's a real, only there's an epistemological problem. Okay, but I mean, you know, let's look into why according to utilitarianism there is no real moral dilemma. I can kind of summarize the basic idea already, but let's see in more detail why utilitarian would not accept the possibility real according to utilitarianism. Already you learned about utilitarianism. The only ultimate principle is one ought to do the action that maximizes the utility.

okay then in any circumstance, you will be able to determine, at least theoretically, which action should be performed using the utilitarian principle. Of course, sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes we make a mistake of predicting what will happen from the options that you're going to take. Okay, but at least in principle, at least in theory, you can determine which action should be performed according to utilitarianism. Of course, if the expected utility are the same in both of the options, I mean you are free to choose whatever option, right? Then there's no real dilemma. Okay, but Wter thinks that this is a wrong conclusion and actually this may be taken as an argument against utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is so short-sighted, so limited, and so narrow-minded to see the possibility that there's a real moral dilemma in the world that we are living. That's the problem, also thing. Okay, now let's see why W believe that there's a real moral dilemma and what kind of real moral

dilemma he means by that. Okay wor believes that there's a real moral dilemma, especially in the realm of politics. Okay, so I mean, I mean we are going to actually take a look at his argument and his explanation of the real morma. But I mean, uh, let's just, let me just emphasize the paradoxical content of the Walter's in. So there's a real moral dilemma according to Walter. It may sometimes be right to do what one knows is morally wrong. Okay, so I mean, this is the notion of getting one's hand dirty, right? You know this is something wrong to do. This is a wrong thing to do, and you know exactly it is wrong, but knowing deliberately sometimes you have to do it. You are morally required to do what is wrong. In that sense, you are getting your hand dirty. Okay, now, um, why does also arrive at this paradoxical conclusion? First, let's talk about politics. I mean, we always have some complaint to make about politicians and how politics

are being done in our society, whether it's in Korea, whether it's in the United States, in any country whatsoever, right? What are the complaints that we are making? The general complaints are that politicians are corrupt, they lie, they host, they threaten, they use power, they abuse power to their personal advantage. So we believe that they are not the right type of politicians that we would wish to have. I mean, but of course, not all politicians are perfect. There will be some corrupt politicians, right? In short, they are immoral. Some politicians, maybe not all politicians, are immoral, but there are some politicians who are immoral, and there are too many of them. Okay, so what are the things that we want in politics? We want a moral person to enter politics, and we want a moral person to be successful in politics so that we have a moral politician. That's what we have, that's what we want as a voter. And sometimes, I mean, you

might want to take a political career because you want to be a Moral Moral politician right that's that's your that's your goal that's your dream. I want to enter politics. I want to you know change the the how it how it is being done, and I want to make it better right. And now let's see in more detail what we mean by saying that we want a moral politician. What do we mean by that? We want a moral politi in the sense that first we want that person to be moral, of course. I mean, this is a this is I mean you might think that this is quite pedantic, right, but I mean sometimes you have to be quite quite careful, and and and sometimes you have to um make sure we are on the same page, so that's why it may seem that I'm repeating myself. I I want to make sure that we we lay all of them to be there, right ex so what do we mean by saying that we want a moral politician? First we want that person to

be moral. Okay, that means she adheres to moral principles. Okay, for example, opposing words, tortures, lying, manipulating, and so on. What are what, what, what, what is the second thing that we want in a moral politician? I mean, first item, we want her to be moral, but at the same time, second, we want her to be a politician, right? What mean, what we mean by that is she needs to be politically successful, right? I mean, we, we, we, we want her to be elected, we want her to enter the Senate, right? We want her to be elected as a mayor, right? So that's what we mean by saying that we want somebody, we want a moral politician. First, we want that person to be moral, second, we want that person to be a politician, right? But the problem is in an imperfect society, you need to make a compromise in your moral principle in order to be successful. Okay, so let, let's, let's imagine some, some possible scenario, okay? Let's say, you are, you are

running in an election right you are running for the campaign that you I mean you you are appealing to the general public that you want to be a moral good politician I mean you are a good person you're a moral person and if you enter if you enter Senate and become a senator or Congressman then you're going to be make a difference okay but let's say there's some immoral World B um let's say um he approaches you and offers your deal right. I have a vote I have a thousand vot that I can give you right if you if you if you mean make a promise that you're going to give me some some some benefit right. He wants to make a political bargain right um so of course according to your moral principle um it's not right to make this kind of bargain and and and save your political inte and personal Integrity to to get successful in politics right so now you you are you are hesitating

you have worries. You are agonizing over what to do. Okay, there are two scenarios, right? Two possible scenarios. One possible scenario is, suppose you refuse to get your hands dirty. Okay, so you say no, no to this immoral World B who has lots of huge influence over, I mean, over, let's say, thousands of votes, right? So what will happen? Most likely, you will not win the election. You will not win this particular important election, let's say. Let's also assume that this election is particularly important, and you know it. What does it mean? You will not succeed in making a difference. So I mean, you are a good person. You prove that you're a good person by refusing to get your hands dirty, but at the same time, you are, you, you, you fail in being a politician. I'm sorry, that means you should not have entered politics. You fail to be the moral politician that you want to be, and we want you to be. Okay, so in this possible scenario, you fail to be the moral politician you want to be. What are the

other possible scenario. The other possible scenario: you make a promise. Okay, this is a very... this is a particularly important election. You have to be a politician. You have to enter the Senate to make a difference. So you make a compromise. Okay, so let's say you win and get the political power you need to bring about the good result for the public. Okay, and let's say also, I mean, you are not... you're not just... two-faced. I mean, you sincerely believe that you're going to bring about good result for the public, and this is the reason why you want to enter the politic. Okay, let's say this happens, then what would you feel about the result? One possible scenario is you justify your action by saying to yourself that this was a necessary thing to do. Okay, and I mean, the end justifies the mean. I mean, but ultimately you're going to be a congressman and bring about good result for the public. So, to achieve that noble end, sometimes you have to make...

compromise. So, the end justifies the means, right? So you believe that you are not guilty. You don't deserve punishment because you did the right thing to do, right? Your hands are not dirty even though you made a compromise. Okay, this is the other person's scenario. Well, Walter, do not think that these are the only two possible scenarios. Actually, there's another possible scenario. Maybe we can call it W's Middle Way. Well, Walter points out that neither of the two possible scenarios is a way to be a moral politician. Okay, I mean, of course. I mean, in the first scenario, you fail to be a politician. So that's why you cannot become a moral politician. Second, in the second scenario, also you are not a moral politician because you believe that your action is justified because of the end you are following. You keep saying to yourself, I mean, ultimately, I'm going to achieve that end. But you know what? Actually, you are compromising your moral principles. So in that sense, you are failing to

be the moral politician you started out to be. So, this is also not the way to be a moral position. Then what is the middle way and what is the only way to be a moral politician? You have to scrup agonize about the compromises that you have to make to make a difference. Then this shows that you are really moral and you overcome the scruple and worry and get your hands dirty. That means you have what it takes to be a successful politician, right? And also, this is important. You do not simply feel bad, but sincerely believe that you are guilty of wrongdoing because you made a compromise. You made a compromise in moral principle. You sense here, so that means you believe that you have become tainted. Only when you have this kind of guilty conscience, you're going to, I mean the fact that you have this kind of guilty conscience shows that you are really a moral person. So even though in her actions of making a compromise and making a political

bargain with the immoral immoral World B actually the the the the the state of the Soul if I may say uh is different from the second scenario okay so you feel guilty real guilt right and and and you believe that you deserve actually punishment because you have done something wrong even though you did this for the for the great good right so this is this is the the the the the conclusion uh of Wes I I quote the the uh his willingness to acknowledge and bear his guilt is evidence and it is the only evidence he can offer us both that he is not too good for politics and that he is good enough so in this sense actually this person has got his hand dirty right and by getting his dirty he shows that he is a real IM moral person and he did wrong wrong thing to do okay so in some cases maybe making a promise compromise is the right thing to do that is it is sometimes right to do what is morally wrong IE making a political coment comp okay um before we evaluate Walter ideas and

and come to our own conclusion. Uh, let me, let me make a comment on what our reaction to that person be if we find out what, what has happened. Of course, I mean, maybe as, as a voter, I mean, let's say we, we see that this person is very moral and we want this person to be successful in, in politics because, I mean, certainly we are, we are fed up, we are tired of this immoral and, and, and, and, and, and you know, politicians. So we want, we, we support this person. But let's say, uh, later we found out she made a compromise. Okay, what should our reaction to that person? How should we react? Those moral politicians who got their hands dirty. Do we have to praise them by, for, for, for making the compromise because it was for the greater good? Or should we punish them? Or, or should we, should we, should we look down upon them? What, what should be our reaction? Well, first of all, before we, we need to make our reaction, um, I, I want to make a comment on action.

and motivation, and certainly the actions are public. We can see somebody's action, but the motivations are opaque. We can never be what some person's motivation behind some action, right? So, I mean, sometimes, let's say the person we are supporting, let we find out he made a political compromise, okay, he made a bargain with immoral world, and we may trust by believing that she was being moral, but at the same time, she had to make a compromise, compromise to be successful, to be moral politician, right? I mean, that's one possibility. Another is, I mean, we may be, you may say that, ah, he started out by being started out as a as a moral person, but by entering politics, she already got got got polluted, she got tainted already, she is making compromise. So, I mean, now we have to withdraw our support for that, that politician, because now she is actually getting more and more similar, there's no real difference between the the the immoral politicians that we we we we denigrate, and and we we are fed up.

with this person, okay, certainly, we don't know, we cannot be certain. I mean, ultimately, but as I said, if I am one of the voters who supported this person who started out as a motor person, I'm certainly the thing that I want to listen, uh, that I want to pay attention to is how would she feel about the compromise she makes. Does she say that I deserve punishment, I am guilty, then I will actually trust her to be, to be the moral person she started out to be. So if the person is really moral, they will not complain that they are being punished, they will indeed agree that they deserve to be punished. So what I mean personally, my reaction would be like this: if I am the judge, I will sentence guilty, right? I will agree to send this person, this politician, to the prison, okay, because I mean what she did was wrong, even if she was a moral person. And then I will actually visit him as a friend.

supporter and comforting and to stay healthy in the prison. And if he comes out, uh, paying the price for wrongdoing, then I will support. I stay friend, stay friend. Okay, I have this dual reaction to that politically and publicly. He should be pun, so I agree to send him to jail. But personally, and as a point of a person, I will stay friend, and I trust him. So I mean, this is a very interesting idea. That's why I wanted to show you this idea so that you have interesting food for thought. So let me summarize W's conclusion. So W's conclusion is, as I said, is this: It may sometimes be right to do what is morally wrong. Okay, this is the real moral dilemma. So when you try to enter politics and try to make a big difference, be prepared to bear the burden or gear if you want to make a difference as a politician. Sometimes sacrificing one's

own moral integrity to bring out benefit for others. This is the most moral option. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your own moral integrity. So, ultimately when you enter politics, I don't know how many of you may actually enter politics, or work in those areas, but ultimately, sometimes you have to ask yourself this question: Is what I ultimately want is to keep my hand clean or to make a difference? If your focus is simply to make your hand clean, then you're not going to be able to make a real difference in this imperfect society. Then maybe you should not enter politics, that's what W says. Okay, now it's time to evaluate W all complete. Well, I have to say I agree with W's conclusion, but at the same time, I have to emphasize that his idea is very much dangerous. I cannot emphasize the danger of this idea. Okay, as I said, it seems that I cannot help but accept his conclusion, but at the same

time. How often and in what kind of situation are you going to apply Walter's idea is a different matter. I mean, there's a very, very much danger in W idea. Okay, the W ideas should not be used as an easy excuse for doing immoral things, making a compromise too easily. Imagine that you enter politics. You want to be a moral politician. Okay, but, and sometimes, I have to admit, I mean, this is actually very troubling, right? But I'm not really 100% happy to admit this conclusion. That's what I want to say. I don't want to accept this conclusion, but it seems that I'm forced to accept this conclusion because it's true. But at the same time, there's too much danger. This idea should not be involved too often. How much is too often? How much is too too easily? I mean, we don't know, right? But always, you have to remind yourself of the danger of this idea. First thing that I have to say is

this idea is limited to the political realm. What is a political realm? One decision can make a huge difference. This is why politics is so important. I mean, you know what, as a side, side, side, as a digression. And by the way, there might be many young people who are fed up with politics and they may feel that, um, I don't want to, I don't want to pay too much attention to politics anymore because I mean it's so tiring. I mean you don't get what you want that much. I mean you did what you can but you failed. I mean, sometimes that's why people give up politics. They don't want to read newspapers, they don't want to listen to news and debates because I mean they are fed up with the Poli. But you know what, I mean you can't afford to do that. Politics is so important, right? I mean one decision actually in the politics can

make a huge difference in the society and in foreign policy and in the world. So I mean this is why political realm is so important and at the same time so complex and difficult right. So alter idea I have to I have to emphasize cannot be applied outside the realm of politics okay. Sometimes you will be tempted to use Walter's idea to justify your action which you feel that are morally dubious okay. You feel that what you are about to do is morally problematic right. But sometimes you feel tempted to to apply what idea and and justified you know what I need to get my hand dirty no no no no. If you are if you are not in the political realm watch idea cannot apply okay. Watch idea can apply only in the political realm where one decision. One policy can make a huge difference that's be the condition of applying application of water society okay. Second even in the political real this idea should not be invoked too often okay. I mean the the conclusion I mean read read the conclusion in in bold bold type Bas again it may sometimes be right to do

what is morally wrong, and it may sometimes, I have to emphasize, sometimes, not too often. Okay, maybe there's a one or twice in somebody's political career that you may be able to invoke W idea and be right, but not too often. If you are using, if you are relying on W side too often, you have to ask yourself, am I being a moral person anymore? You have to ask yourself, maybe you are getting polluted, you are becoming one of those immoral politicians. Okay, you have to ask yourself. By the way, I imagining that you are entering politics in the future. Okay, in an imperfect society, you need to make a compromise in your moral principle in order to be successful. This is Walter's conclusion, as I said. I have to admit, I cannot help but admit, accept this conclusion. But at the same time, I want to make a comment that sometimes there's a beauty of failure, beauty of failure even to make a difference. Okay, I mean, maybe by not by

by refusing to make a political bargain with the immoral person, you're going to fail at this election. Right, but you know what, maybe that's more valuable than succeeding in this election. And maybe, um, I mean, because you're doing the right thing, the people who are supporting you will later find out that you didn't make that compromise and be touched, be moved, and actually will be able to maintain the moral ideal and work for you. Of course, I mean, here by refusing to make a political bargain, you are not expecting this result, right? You are, you are more, so you are doing what is the right thing to do, meaning not making a political bargain, right? But at the same time, it will result in, I mean, gaining people's trust. So maybe in the next election, you're going to be able to win without actually making a problematic and immoral political bargain, right? So sometimes, I want to say that there's a

beauty of failure too also. I mean, we have to distinguish short-term success and long-term success. I mean, you may feel that this is particularly important election, but you know what, there will be election in every four years, every five years, right? Maybe by failing in this election, you're going to be successful in a better way, in a moral way, later, five years later. Okay, so I mean, certainly when, certainly when you are tempted to take advantage of just idea, you have to remind yourself of this distinction. Are you maybe you are too obsessing over short-term success, as if this is the only chance to make a difference? Maybe you are not, maybe maybe it is not true, this is not the only chance that you have to take, maybe there will be another chance later in 5 years, in four year. Okay, then you're going to be you're going to be a successful politician in a better way by not making a political party. Okay, so as I said

even though I have to admit that I accept Watchers inclusion. At the same time, there is so much to say about the danger and of the idea, and what to do and what not to do in those kinds of imaginations. I believe some of you will enter politics, either become a politician yourself, or maybe as an advisor, or work for some politician. I hope you remind yourself of the dangerous idea at the same time.

13 정치윤리

13 정치윤리

스크립트