WHILE PREPARING FOR CLASS: Re-reading (or: re-re-re-re-re-reading) Walzer's "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands," I noticed in particular his three-part typology of responses to the problem of Dirty Hands: neoclassical, Protestant, and Catholic. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, though his examples are certainly chosen to emphasize their points of difference--one could choose examples who were closer together in their views. What struck me as odd this time was his choices: Machiavelli (about whom I have no complaints as an example), Weber and Camus. Weber, of course, may only barely qualify as Protestant (I think he's not, but don't know his personal biography well enough), and is in any case responsible for a number of the incorrect Protestant stereotypes that float around; Camus is
definitely not Catholic. Why create a three-part typology and then use two people who are not good examples of the type? No idea.
1 comment:
This is (embarrassingly) one of Walzer's essays that I've not yet read. So I don't know if the suggestion I'm about to make fits with his argument or not. But it strikes me that one need not be a Catholic or a Protestant in order to offer a good example of the Catholic and Protestant ways of approaching the problem of dirty hands. That is, do Weber's "ethic of responsibility" and Camus's thinking about responsibility and consequences exhibit the features Walzer associates with the type or not? It would seem that this would be possible whatever their faith positions may be.
Post a Comment