Dirty Hands: Problems of Political Ethics. Question, ‘Normal ethical constraints do not and cannot apply during war if victory is the goal’. Discuss.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Title: Ethical Constraints in Times of War: Examining the Dilemma of Dirty Hands
Introduction
The concept of “dirty hands” refers to the ethical dilemma faced by political leaders when they must engage in morally questionable actions for the greater good or in pursuit of victory during times of war. The question at hand asserts that normal ethical constraints do not and cannot apply during war if victory is the goal. This essay will critically examine this assertion, discussing the complexities and controversies surrounding the suspension or relaxation of ethical norms during wartime.
The Necessity of Ethical Constraints
Upholding Fundamental Moral Principles
Ethical constraints are rooted in a society’s fundamental moral principles, such as respect for human life, human rights, and justice. These principles form the basis of a civilized society and should ideally be upheld even during times of war. By adhering to ethical constraints, nations can maintain their moral integrity and ensure that their actions align with universally accepted standards of conduct.
Preventing Excessive Harm and Atrocities
Ethical constraints serve as a safeguard against excessive harm and atrocities committed during war. They establish limits on the means and methods used in warfare, aiming to protect innocent civilians and prevent unnecessary suffering. By adhering to ethical norms, nations can mitigate the risks of indiscriminate violence, torture, and other acts that would harm non-combatants.
The Ethical Dilemma: Dirty Hands in War
Contextualizing the Dilemma
In times of war, political leaders often face complex decisions that involve sacrificing ethical principles for the sake of strategic advantage or victory. They may argue that the urgency and stakes of warfare necessitate actions that would otherwise be considered morally unacceptable. This raises the question of whether normal ethical constraints can be disregarded when victory is the ultimate goal.
Utilitarian Perspective
Utilitarian ethics argue that actions should be judged based on their overall consequences, aiming to maximize overall happiness or utility. From this perspective, suspending normal ethical constraints during war may be justified if it leads to a greater good, such as protecting one’s nation or preventing further violence and suffering.
Critiques and Challenges
Slippery Slope Argument
Critics argue that relaxing ethical constraints during war can lead to a slippery slope, where initial justifications for morally questionable actions can spiral into widespread abuses. Once ethical boundaries are crossed, it becomes increasingly difficult to reinstate them, potentially resulting in long-lasting negative consequences for society.
Erosion of Moral Integrity
Relaxing ethical constraints risks eroding a nation’s moral integrity, both domestically and internationally. Actions deemed morally reprehensible can tarnish a nation’s reputation, undermine its credibility, and weaken its ability to advocate for ethical norms in the future.
Accountability and Legitimacy Concerns
When normal ethical constraints are suspended during war, accountability becomes challenging. Without proper oversight and checks, leaders may abuse their powers, leading to human rights abuses and violations of international law. Furthermore, the legitimacy of a victorious outcome achieved through unethical means may be questioned by other nations and undermine broader efforts towards peace and stability.
Conclusion
While the assertion claims that normal ethical constraints do not and cannot apply during war if victory is the goal, it is crucial to recognize the complexities and controversies surrounding this issue. Ethical constraints serve as vital safeguards against excessive harm and atrocities, ensuring that nations maintain moral integrity even in times of conflict. While there may be arguments for relaxing these constraints based on strategic necessity or utilitarian perspectives, the risks of erosion of moral integrity, accountability concerns, and potential long-term negative consequences must be carefully considered.
In practice, striking a balance between military necessity and maintaining ethical norms is a challenging task for political leaders. Rather than dismissing ethical constraints entirely, efforts should focus on refining rules of engagement, promoting adherence to international humanitarian law, and exploring diplomatic solutions to minimize the need for compromising ethical principles in times of war. Ultimately, upholding fundamental moral principles even in the face of adversity is essential for the preservation of humanity and a just world order.
