 |
| Someone's hands look a tad dirty! |
To start off, what exactly is a dirty hands scenario? A dirty hands scenario is basically a moral conflict between two choices. The person that's struggling with the dirty hands situation can choose to do something wrong in order to do something right. HOWEVER, it is only considered a dirty hands situation if the choice is for the benefit of the state.
Now in Walzer's article he suggests three models for dirty hands. The "protestant" model, the "catholic" model, and the "neo-classical" model. For the purposes of this blog post, I would like to focus on the protestant model of dirty hands.
The protestant model focuses on good men with dirty hands that sacrifice their own salvation to do something good for others. They basically become what is known as a "Tragic Hero".
From Walzer's article, Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands, he briefly summarizes Max Weber's take on the protestant model,
I know what you're thinking. How does this relate to The Dark Knight? Well, watch this clip and then we'll talk.
Ok so, what just happened? For those of you who haven't seen the movie, you can read a brief synopsis here. Basically, Gordon and Batman realized that with Harvey Dent dead the people of Gotham would question the legitimacy of the cities government. In order to keep civil unrest from breaking out, Batman decides that they must lie to the people of Gotham and tell them Batman had killed Dent.
This relates to Walzer's protestant model of dirty hands because they are faced with a moral conflict. Should the both of them lie to the people of Gotham to save them or tell them the truth? They end up lying to the people, choosing the immoral action. In essence they are choosing to do bad in order to do something that is good. More specifically, Batman ends up condemning himself in order to save the people of Gotham City by telling them that he was the one who murdered Dent. Batman becomes the tragic hero in Walzer's model, fleeing off into the night, dirty hands and all.
Batman is not the only film that illustrates the dirty hands concept. I'm curious to see what other films you guys can think of that would fall into one of Walzer's three theories of dirty hands. Comment below and let me know!
(Credits: The "Dirty Hands" Picture was in public domain. Walzer's quote was from Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.)
From Walzer's article, Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands, he briefly summarizes Max Weber's take on the protestant model,
For Weber, the good man with dirty hands is a hero still, but he is a tragic hero. in part, his tragedy is that thought politics is his vocation, he has not been called by God and so cannot be justified by Him. Weber's hero is alone in a world that seems to belong to Satan, and his vocation is entirely his own choice. He still wants what Christian magistrates have always wanted, both to do good in the world and to save his soul, but now these two ends have come into sharp contradiction. They are contradictory because of the necessity for violence in a world where God has not instituted the sword. The politician takes the sword himself, and only by doing so does he measure up to his vocation. With full consciousness of what he is doing, he does bad in order to do good, and surrenders his soul.
I know what you're thinking. How does this relate to The Dark Knight? Well, watch this clip and then we'll talk.
Ok so, what just happened? For those of you who haven't seen the movie, you can read a brief synopsis here. Basically, Gordon and Batman realized that with Harvey Dent dead the people of Gotham would question the legitimacy of the cities government. In order to keep civil unrest from breaking out, Batman decides that they must lie to the people of Gotham and tell them Batman had killed Dent.
This relates to Walzer's protestant model of dirty hands because they are faced with a moral conflict. Should the both of them lie to the people of Gotham to save them or tell them the truth? They end up lying to the people, choosing the immoral action. In essence they are choosing to do bad in order to do something that is good. More specifically, Batman ends up condemning himself in order to save the people of Gotham City by telling them that he was the one who murdered Dent. Batman becomes the tragic hero in Walzer's model, fleeing off into the night, dirty hands and all.
Batman is not the only film that illustrates the dirty hands concept. I'm curious to see what other films you guys can think of that would fall into one of Walzer's three theories of dirty hands. Comment below and let me know!
(Credits: The "Dirty Hands" Picture was in public domain. Walzer's quote was from Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.)
Kevin this is a entertaining blog because I love Christopher Nolan's Batman series and how this relates to our political science class. I do agree with your assessment of the theory of Dirty Hands as it relates to "The Dark Knight" because Bruce Wayne, Batman, and Commissioner Gordon are forced to lie inorder to protect Gotham's judicial system.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of your blog you wanted to know if there were any other movies that use the concept of Dirty Hands and I know of several. In the movie "The Departed" Mark Wahlberg's character is caught in a situation were he must get his hands dirty. Wahlberg decides to kill "a rat" , Matt Damon, inside his police department inorder to stop him from corrupting his whole department and to safeguard the public. Another film where a character is forced to get his hand's dirty is "American Ganster". Russell Crowe's character has to break moral codes established by the NYC police department when he finds a great sum of cash. Crowe decides not to keep the money, breaking a moral code established by his police force, and as a result he is vilified by his fellow officers.
I was so excited to read this blog post when I saw that it was related to The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight is my favorite movie and there are many other great examples of the dirty hands theory in it. Commissioner Gordon (played by Gary Oldman) pretends to die while protecting the mayor (played by Nestor Carbonell) because the mayor was the Joker’s next hit:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxXZzeFWO7s
Everybody in Gotham believed that they had just lost another judicial leader. Gordon even had his family lied to it seem real. By lying to his family and his city, Gordon was able to save the Batman from being hurt by the Joker after he crashes. He was also able to capture the Joker… for the moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mj8HwOhViY
Although lying may be considered the “immoral action” in this situation it was imperative to lie because the safety of Gordon’s life, as well as his family’s life was in serious danger. Gordon’s wife is absolutely devastated to think that her husband was just murdered and for a few days she believed it. His lie caused her to momentarily suffer, but when she finds out that he is still alive she first slaps him in the face and then gives him a hug. He needed to get his hands dirty in order to attempt to put an end to the chaos in Gotham City.
This is a chill topic to blog about if we must blog. I have in my notes from our lecture on dirty hands that Walzer preferred the "Catholic" model to dirty hands as opposed to the "Protestant" one. This was because with the protestant model, after one time of sacrificing your soul, you were already considered sacrificed for good. This person could keep doing evil and never have to feel bad about it because they were already condemned. After Truman dropped the A-bomb, he could have theoretically (according to the protestant model) keep dropping bombs because his fate was sealed. However, in the catholic model, there are determinate sins and determinate punishments. This means that someone should evaluate every new action before doing it even if they have done something horrific in the past.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the view of Batman as a tragic hero when he saved Dent's reputation by taking the blame for murders he didn't commit. Therefore I think the protestant model of dirty hands is the best way to describe him. But does anyone think that Walzer could have found problems in Batman's actions? Should he have done something different? I guess this is where a discussion about what took place in the third movie of the series might help. Batman sort of gave up on Gotham after he took the blame for Dent's actions. He became a hermit and didn't do anything to stop the city from going to hell again. I think that Batman
I think there is another prominent example of dirty hands in Batman. Alfred Pennyworth, Bruce Wayne's butler, received a letter from Rachel that explained her choice to marry Harvey Dent. That would have crushed Wayne, so Alfred burned the letter. Bruce finds out about it in the third movie and completely disowns Alfred. Were Alfred's actions for Bruce's good, therefore making his hands dirty?
Joseph,
DeleteThanks for your post. In regards to whether or not Walzer would have had issues with Batman's actions I think it is important to look at the next movie in the series like you said. There is a particularly insightful scene I wish I could post between Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, John Blake, and commissioner Gordon. Blake has just found out what Batman and Gordon did at the end of The Dark Knight. The scene unfolds as such:
John Blake: Those men locked up for eight years in Blackgate, and denied parole under the Dent Act, based on a lie?
Jim Gordon: Gotham needed a hero...
John Blake: It needs it now more than ever. You betrayed everything you stood for.
Jim Gordon: There's a point, far out there when the structures fail you, and the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're... shackles letting the bad guy get ahead. One day... you may face such a moment of crisis. And in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did, to plunge their hands into the filth so that you can keep yours clean!
John Blake: Your hands look plenty filthy to me, Commissioner.
I think that based on this scene Walzer would have found issue with Batman's actions as well as Gordon's. Just because they lied to save Gotham doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. The protestant model would tell us that what Batman did was wrong, but he did it to do right. His decision makes him a tragic hero. Like you said in your post, however, Walzer suggests the Catholic Model over the Protestant Model. This means that Walzer might think Batman and Gordon should have some sort of determinant punishment for their sin.
Of course, this is all speculation because I don't think we really have enough information to truly decide what Walzer would think, we can only infer. Let me know how you think the scene I suggested might change things or add clarifications.
This is such a great post. The Dark Knight trilogy is probably one of the definitive "hero" movies of our generation, not in the sense that it is about a superhero but rather because it is about what it means to be a hero. I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with your commentary.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of another movie with a similar message, I think V for Vendetta is a good example. It takes place in an alternate reality version of England where a corrupt government faction is in power. The main character is a freedom fighter named V. The reason his hands are dirty is because of his use of violence to promote resistance against the corrupt government. He ends up slaughtering dozens of people, and even blows up a couple buildings for his cause. However, it clearly works because the citizens see his actions and learn to not be afraid of their government. In the end, he eventually pays for it all with his life, this sacrifice further elevating the degree to which he dirtied his hands. I like to think of it this way: he dirtied his hands so much that they could no longer be cleaned.
When the concept of dirty hands was discussed in lecture, the Dark Night Trilogy Batman was the first example I thought of, but another movie example popped up in my mind post lecture: Jack Sparrow. In the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy (let's forget the fourth movie ever existed), there is constant tension between choosing to do what is best for everyone or choosing what is best for Jack.
ReplyDeleteBy nature, a pirate must undertake morally ambiguous or morally wrong actions, and Jack is no exception to this. Throughout the series, Jack continually betrays and deceives both friends and foes for his own sake, but he has moments of clarity where he recognizes that a certain action must be undertaken in order to ensure the result that is best for most.
Furthermore, his position as captain of the Black Pearl also puts him in a position that can be discussed by Machiavelli's concepts on being a prince. I have not seen the Pirates of the Caribbean series in a long time, but I am kind of motivated to go watch it again under the context of Machiavelli's The Prince.