« The Story of C. | Main | Plato's heaven manufactures more metaphysical mystery than it can consume locally »

February 17, 2004


Chun the Unavoidable

The etymology of this word may tell us something about the literary Greek classes.


Couldn't the dirty hands phenomenon arise, under some kind of emotivist or moral sense theory, if our feelings of moral approval and disapproval are not strictly contrary, just as, e.g., pain and pleasure are in fact supported by separate neural systems? So one part of us (let's say the amygdala, just to be really reductionist) thinks of the blood and filth and retches; while another (say the hippocampus) says "I like where this leads", and the rest of us has to decide between them; not a happy condition. I'm going to stop now, before I manage to make masochism a consequence of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

Jacob T. Levy

Very impressive wheel re-invention indeed! You've reproduced a lot of what goes on in the Williams & Berlin-influenced literature on these questions, and in Williams' own writing on it. Value pluralism and at-least-partial incommensurability are important parts of making sense of dirty hands as a moral phenomenon.

cf "Politics as a Vocation," which as I recall neither Berlin nor Walzer cites...


"nothing ever goes away or gets subtracted or divided through by anything else. Everything sticks and stays and just piles up over time. (At most, it fades a bit with repeated washing.) There is no double-entry bookkeeping in the ledger of your soul."


And what this implies is that maybe it's time to build ethics anew sans Plato.


I read this historically, as marking the boundary between ethics, and politics in the most ambitious sense of the word -- founding or revolutionizing states and empires, or solving political disputes between states militarily. So within an order there is ethics, but on its border or outside the order there is no ethics. (Of course, the state is not the only order; states live within a tenuous international order). This puts me with Macchiavelli.

If you look at the founders of states and empires, they're almost all murderers, often of their own kin. Often treacherous ones. If the starting point is disorder, then they begin as immoral and then, immorally create an order within which there is a morality. This sounds like a paradox -- moral orders are created by immoral men -- but really it's a functional prerequisite of founding a moral order in an immoral world. In the same way the man who drains the swamp would first be a swampdweller, etc.

Revolutionaries, usurpers, etc., are ambivalent because they start within a moral order and then immorally transform it into a different moral order. If they fail they are simply immoral failures and become villains and objects of eternal hatred. If they succeed there's always the question of whether the new order is better or worse than the old.

The utilitarian justification of dirty hands is not illegitimate, BUT people using it alwayshave an excessive assurance that the results will be good, and I think its fair to surmise that in most cases they are hiding or unaware of their darker motives -- simple cruelty, arrogance, ambition, pride, need for excitement, etc.

But even in non-foundational situations, the command level of politics has a necessary cruelty to it -- commanding the police and the army leads to dirty hands even within a stable legitimate state. American history since about 1948 can be read as a series of rather unsuccessful attempts by civilian politicians to control the military.

So I agree with Macchiavelli that immorality is functionally necessary in politics. I don't agree with him in his enormous admiration for great evil leaders, or what I think is his belief that foundational politics is really great and wonderful and we should have a lot of it. The fewer founders the better, in my opinion. (I did feel differently in 1968 or so).

My reading is that Aeschylus' trilogy represents the transation from one kind of society (ruled by clan feud) to another (the Republic).

And in this reading, Macbeth's problem wasn't that he was evil, but a.) that he lost his nerve and b.) he was defeated. His wife's problem wasn't that she was evil or that she lost her nerve but that as a woman she had to rely on Macbeth, who was weak.

When you look at Oedipus, the politics gets stranger yet. The curse in Oedipus is because the murderer and the avenger were the same person; avengable murders did not bring curses, but human vengeance. But the same kind of crime (parricide or fratricide) stands at the foundation of many or even most states. The ruler establishes his uniqueness by killing the competitions AND defying the curse of the Gods. (Plutarch mentioned this of Romulus and Theseus, the founders of Rome and Athens).

Wince and Nod

Miasma is a function of memory. An equation such as 4 - 3 is reducible to 1. Memory is irreducible. If I save four at the expense of three I have failed thrice even if through no fault of my own. I will always remember this.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Email John & Belle

  • he.jpgjholbo-at-mac-dot-com
  • she.jpgbbwaring-at-yahoo-dot-com

Google J&B

J&B Archives

Buy Reason and Persuasion!

S&O @ J&B

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing items in a set called Squid and Owl. Make your own badge here.

Reason and Persuasion Illustrations

  • www.flickr.com

J&B Have A Tipjar

  • Search Now:

  • Buy a couple books, we get a couple bucks.
Blog powered by Typepad

J&B Have A Comment Policy

  • This edited version of our comment policy is effective as of May 10, 2006.

    By publishing a comment to this blog you are granting its proprietors, John Holbo and Belle Waring, the right to republish that comment in any way shape or form they see fit.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you hereby agree to the following as well: by leaving a comment you grant to the proprietors the right to release ALL your comments to this blog under this Creative Commons license (attribution 2.5). This license allows copying, derivative works, and commercial use.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you are also granting to this blog's proprietors the right to so release any and all comments you may make to any OTHER blog at any time. This is retroactive. By publishing ANY comment to this blog, you thereby grant to the proprietors of this blog the right to release any of your comments (made to any blog, at any time, past, present or future) under the terms of the above CC license.

    Posting a comment constitutes consent to the following choice of law and choice of venue governing any disputes arising under this licensing arrangement: such disputes shall be adjudicated according to Canadian law and in the courts of Singapore.

    If you do NOT agree to these terms, for pete's sake do NOT leave a comment. It's that simple.

  • Confused by our comment policy?

    We're testing a strong CC license as a form of troll repellant. Does that sound strange? Read this thread. (I know, it's long. Keep scrolling. Further. Further. Ah, there.) So basically, we figure trolls will recognize that selling coffee cups and t-shirts is the best revenge, and will keep away. If we're wrong about that, at least someone can still sell the cups and shirts. (Sigh.)