3. Michael Walzer argues that if candidates for political office don’t want to get their hands dirty, they shouldn’t run. One question is how dirty they should be willing to let their hands get. A candidate, Walzer believes, shouldn’t do just anything necessary to win: it depends on “exactly what is at stake in the election” (166). He gives the example of the candidate who “must make a deal with a dishonest ward boss, involving the granting of contracts for school construction” (165). Choose your own example of a moral compromise a politician might consider. Explain the arguments that might be made in favor of, and against, making the compromise. Do the ends justify the means in this case? Defend your answer. The Problem of Dirty Hands is the problem that sometimes the wrong thing to do is the right thing to do. Putting it simply, the problem concerns itself with exploring whether politicians are justified in committing immoral actions for realizing an important political or moral end. In his essay, Walzer proposes a response to the problem faced by moral public officials stating, “Politicians should violate their moral principles provided they feel guilty about compromising their moral principles” (1). This response will examine the problem of Dirty Hands looking through the lens of the fictional superhero ‘Captain America’ who appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics. Through its arguments, this paper will attempt to show that “dirty hands” are imperative for the effective management, leadership, and security of a nation-state.As the Second World War raged on, the United States needed to reinforce itself with both men and materials in order to create an effective fighting machine that could counter Nazi Germany. The more time this took, the stronger the Third Reich would become. Steve Rogers, the soldier who is Captain America, was subjected to an experimental process for the creation of super-soldiers by the U.S. military. His heightened abilities were systematic and deliberate. For any medical experimental process to be considered ethical, it must be in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. One of the points within the Declaration states,  “Some research populations are particularly vulnerable and need special protection.” These include those who cannot give or refuse consent for themselves and those who may be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence.”[1] Rogers is a young man whose country is churning out patriotic propaganda and defining masculinity through the image of military service. Even though the coercion is not direct, the propaganda surrounding the military effort may be interpreted as undue influence. Now, the decision to conduct this experiment inevitably falls on the hands of a politician who has to consider the moral ramifications of both creating super-soldiers by cell engineering and the fact that it was under undue coercion. Through the course of my essay, I will examine the arguments that might be made for and against making the compromise that faces the politician in question.Let us return to Walzer’s statement that candidates shouldn’t do just anything necessary to win: it depends on “exactly what is at stake in the election” (166). So, what was at stake when the decision on the somatic cell experiment had to be taken? Following decades of historiography, we can claim with a high degree of accuracy that Nazi Germany suppressed the fundamental rights of millions of individuals. However, a direct criticism of this line of thinking states that the fundamental rights of individuals were being violated in several other regions and that Germany should not be considered a greater emergency than those regions. The burden of proof lies with the proponents to show why Nazi Germany required immediate action to be taken by an American politician. The Second World War was unlike any other war, it was a struggle which threatened the very foundation upon which the American-led liberal order lay. It threatened the values and the way of life of the American citizen. It is due to this that there existed a fear beyond the ordinary in the US, a fear which required measures that may be morally questionable. Another axiom of this argument is that states are obligated to protect their citizens and secure the peace to facilitate the harmonious flourishing of their citizens. This enables citizens to strive towards a democratic republic within which people set legal limits upon themselves to facilitate and protect the liberties of everyone. However, this state of autonomy is not possible under threat by foreign states as may have been posed by Nazi Germany in the near future. The concept of defending yourself from a state or potentially even attacking a state that violates other’s political sovereignty is seen as an impediment to the potential hindrance. Taking into account the obligation of states, politicians have the moral responsibility to deter the threats to their citizens’ freedom. However, this raises a conceptual problem with the problem of ‘Dirty Hands’ because if a politician undertakes an act that is morally correct, why should he/she feel guilty at all. Additionally, we cannot make the claim that dirty hands is democratic in nature and being done for the people because the phrase “democratic dirty hands” is an oxymoron. This is simply because a democracy respects the law, and it is the politician’s responsibility to not value the life of anyone citizen over any others.This leads us to a question that mandates further discussion, “Do the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the minority?” Keeping with the thematic tone of pop culture examples, we shall briefly touch upon the final scene of the blockbuster movie ‘Wrath of Khan’ (1982) within the Star Trek franchise. The breakout star of the franchise, Spock, says, “Logically, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.” Holding this true would lead us to conclude that the politician is justified in carrying out somatic cell experiments because of simple mathematics. However, there is no further clarification offered within the statement. Which “majority”? Which “minority”? “Outweigh” on what metric? For what needs? There exists no ‘logic’ that effectively backs up Spock’s statement. On the contrary, far from being logical, this claim is a simple restatement of a theory known as utilitarianism, which asserts that each individual should act to serve the interests of the greater good. The principal flaw with utilitarianism is that it offers no cogent reason to act for the well-being of other individuals, apart from how doing so would reflect well upon oneself. There exists another key flaw with this ideal: individuals are not seen as responsible for their own lives, health, and happiness. Instead, each individual is responsible for the life, health, and happiness of the society at large. To be moral, according to utilitarianism, individuals must act as to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and in order to do so must sacrifice their personal goals and values to achieve that end. This would replace the role of a politician with that of a “moral expert” that would be part of a collectivist political program. This proposal bears a striking resemblance to that of the Borg Collective[2] in The Wrath of Khan. Relating this to the central example of this essay, what if Steve Rogers does not wish to undergo somatic cell treatment? Would the “moral experts” say, as do the Borg, “Resistance is futile?”. The utilitarian framework evaluates individuals and their action by the standard of the collective, and is hence incompatible with the principle of individual rights. This would lead us to conclude that the somatic cell experiment should not be carried out on Steve Rogers as it would violate the principle of individual rights even if it is for the greater good.Keeping in mind the above arguments, I am going to endeavor to show to the reader why the ends justify the means in the case of the somatic cell experiments being conducted on Steve Rogers. In order to do so, the necessity of dirty hands in public administration for the effective management, leadership, and security of a nation-state will be examined. The word administration is derived from the Latin word ministrare, which means “to serve”, and administrators have the responsibility to propagate the interests of the citizens that elected them. This is especially true in the case of the U.S., which prides itself in being a truly representative democracy. Politicians in power have multiple roles to play in society. On an individual level, politicians are subject to the same moral dictates as citizens in general, but as government officials, they have a larger role to act for the best interests of their constituents. American politicians wield power in the interests of those who have granted them the authority to govern in exchange for having agreed to adopt a special interest in the polity’s well-being. As a politician whose state may be facing a potential threat from Nazi Germany, it is reasonable for the politician to violate the principle of individual for the greater good by authorising the somatic cell experiments.Through the course of this essay, I have presented the reader with arguments that address the conceptual issue with democratic dirty hands and utilitarianism when applied to the case of the somatic cell experiments being conducted on Steve Rogers. Through exploring the role of the moral politician, this paper has concluded that the use of dirty hands in political action is a necessary part of national security, allowing governments and citizens to exercise their powers and maintain order while keeping the interests of the majority in mind.Works CitedWalzer, Michael (1973). Political action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. Philosophy and Public Affairs:160-180.“Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.” The World Medical Association, www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.[1] See Declaration of Helsinki[2] The Borg are a fictional alien group that appear as recurring antagonists in the Star Trek franchise. The Borg are cybernetic organisms, linked in a hive mind called “the Collective”.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more