Dirty Hands and Moral Obligations

Would you care if you were associated with some unethical project? Most people probably would. What if neither maintaining nor dropping your association would change anything? Sticking around doesn’t make things worse; leaving won’t make things better. Do you have a moral obligation to leave and not have “dirty hands”?

Joshua Glasgow writes about this:

I’ve long been a believer in the principle that if you ought to do something, then it has to be the case that you are able to do that thing (that is, ought-implies-can)... I’m wondering, however, whether one couldn’t take the other side, and assume that there is, in fact, an obligation even in cases of widespread noncompliance, and instead deny that ought implies can.

That is, my friend can’t do what (by hypothesis) he ought to do, namely make his stand to the end of producing social change, because the noncompliance of others makes it impossible for him to achieve his end. But if ought doesn't imply can, then we could still say that he ought to make his stand. And this would be true of any principled stand where one must either play along with convention and get one’s hands dirty or take a principled stand to no good effect.

Here I think is a case where Virtue Ethics might have something to say. The consequences of taking a principled stand don’t offer any guidance because the consequence of taking a stand and getting your hands dirty are basically the same, socially and politically speaking. It’s also unclear whether there can be any sort of deontological duty to take a principled stand.

There is, however, the question of whether you would want to be the sort of person who takes principled stands like this. Standing up for what is right in the face of widespread noncompliance with these principles requires virtues like courage and honor. Thus, standing up helps you to become a person who has courage and honor.

Just something to think about...

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• News About Ethics