Abstract
AbstractIn this article, I offer a novel account of why compromising in politics is likely to involve the kind of politically admirable but morally wrongful behavior at stake in the dirty hands thesis. On the view I defend, politicians do not dirty their hands just because they compromise on matters of principle. Rather, when forging a political compromise, negotiators can either comply with the requirements of ethical compromise-making or abide by the special obligations they have to their representees, but will struggle to satisfy both demands. As a result, subsequent to such compromises, residual moral claims about how the compromise was negotiated will almost inevitably emerge and compromise-makers will not be able to explain their conduct in a way that can cancel these grievances. It is in this sense that forging political compromises can be “dirty” even if choosing to compromise is the politically responsible thing to do.
Highlights
Many scholars of political ethics who address the problem of dirty hands include “compromising” in their list of acts that admirable politicians will sometimes engage in but that implicate them in wrongdoing.1 they rarely explain why forging political compromises has
Subsequent to such compromises, residual moral claims about how the compromise was negotiated will almost inevitably emerge and compromise-makers will not be able to explain their conduct in a way that can cancel these grievances. It is in this sense that forging political compromises can be “dirty” even if choosing to compromise is the politically responsible thing to do
I examine the nature of political compromises, outlining the cursory ways much of the extant literature frames the relationship between dirty hands and political compromise before addressing Chiara Lepora and Robert Goodin’s sophisticated account of why, even if it can be justified overall, compromising on matters of principle generates serious moral costs
Summary
I argue that despite the merits of their account, Lepora and Goodin cannot explain why politicians who opt to compromise on matters of principle have engaged in the kind of moral wrongdoing at stake in the dirty hands debate. Having made this point, I develop my main argument that compromising in politics is likely to require one to dirty one’s hands by showing that a conflict obtains between the ethical requirements of good compromise-making and the obligations that apply to professional politicians as representatives who are tasked with robustly advocating for their representees.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
