Key Claims for Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands;
Self-awareness of an action being morally incorrect reflects a reason why the person should commit it. Awareness creates justification for following through. (pp 64)
The moral politician is considered someone that would be conscious of his bad actions, rather than believing all his actions are good. (pp 65)
Rules function as a method to not only motivate people to act the best they possibly can, but to showcase what type of person that are if they do end up breaking them (i.e. feeling guilt or nothing at all). (pp 68)
Breaking the rules should be an exception, only committed in the most dire of circumstances rather than being the norm. (pp 68)
Self-awareness, however, is not enough …show more content…
I agree; torture, if necessary, should be considered the exception to a place of rules rather than the integrated norm. By removing all rules and thus allow torture to be an inexplicably legal action, it creates a slippery slope where torture can pushed to the most radical of inhumane practices and no punishment would promptly incur. A lack of rules would justify any misdemeanor or larger practice and would not urge anyone to repent or feel the slightest of guilt for committing such an atrocity. Structuring systems to not accept or urge torture helps to promote equal, or what theoretically should be equal, justice across every platform. If the law were to sanction or not criminalize torture, it would prove counterefficent because normalizing such an extreme action shields those committing it from proper punishment and begins the debate: “If this extremely atrocious thing is commonly necessary, then why aren’t these lesser crimes also accepted and not punished?” It is better to completely restrict larger crimes and behave in the moment than to constantly anticipate exercises of such atrocious behaviors and reach the point of ‘no
Self-awareness of an action being morally incorrect reflects a reason why the person should commit it. Awareness creates justification for following through. (pp 64)
The moral politician is considered someone that would be conscious of his bad actions, rather than believing all his actions are good. (pp 65)
Rules function as a method to not only motivate people to act the best they possibly can, but to showcase what type of person that are if they do end up breaking them (i.e. feeling guilt or nothing at all). (pp 68)
Breaking the rules should be an exception, only committed in the most dire of circumstances rather than being the norm. (pp 68)
Self-awareness, however, is not enough …show more content…
I agree; torture, if necessary, should be considered the exception to a place of rules rather than the integrated norm. By removing all rules and thus allow torture to be an inexplicably legal action, it creates a slippery slope where torture can pushed to the most radical of inhumane practices and no punishment would promptly incur. A lack of rules would justify any misdemeanor or larger practice and would not urge anyone to repent or feel the slightest of guilt for committing such an atrocity. Structuring systems to not accept or urge torture helps to promote equal, or what theoretically should be equal, justice across every platform. If the law were to sanction or not criminalize torture, it would prove counterefficent because normalizing such an extreme action shields those committing it from proper punishment and begins the debate: “If this extremely atrocious thing is commonly necessary, then why aren’t these lesser crimes also accepted and not punished?” It is better to completely restrict larger crimes and behave in the moment than to constantly anticipate exercises of such atrocious behaviors and reach the point of ‘no