2008Unpublished venueRequires access

Is there a ‘Public Morality’ that is Distinct from ‘Private Morality’?

Yuval Ginbar

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Abstract This chapter considers whether there is, in extreme situations, a ‘public morality’ that is distinct from ‘private morality’ and its implications on the ‘ticking bomb’ debate, including a discussion of the ‘dirty hands’ dilemma. Theorists have argued that there are differences between action in the private and public spheres relating to representation, numbers, impersonality and impartiality, violence and consequences. However, those justifying torture in a ticking bomb situation have relied on general consequentialist arguments rather than limiting them to the public sphere or to officials. The effects of torture by officials would nevertheless be much more extensive than if inflicted by a private individual, and officials have a positive duty to protect the population. Theorists have argued that in the real world citizens must limit the powers of leaders, including by absolute prohibitions based on general moral grounds.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract This chapter considers whether there is, in extreme situations, a ‘public morality’ that is distinct from ‘private morality’ and its implications on the ‘ticking bomb’ debate, including a discussion of the ‘dirty hands’ dilemma. Theorists have argued that there are differences between action in the private and public spheres relating to representation, numbers, impersonality and impartiality, violence and consequences. However, those justifying torture in a ticking bomb situation have relied on general consequentialist arguments rather than limiting them to the public sphere or to officials. The effects of torture by officials would nevertheless be much more extensive than if inflicted by a private individual, and officials have a positive duty to protect the population. Theorists have argued that in the real world citizens must limit the powers of leaders, including by absolute prohibitions based on general moral grounds.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract This chapter considers whether there is, in extreme situations, a ‘public morality’ that is distinct from ‘private morality’ and its implications on the ‘ticking bomb’ debate, including a discussion of the ‘dirty hands’ dilemma. Theorists have argued that there are differences between action in the private and public spheres relating to representation, numbers, impersonality and impartiality, violence and consequences. However, those justifying torture in a ticking bomb situation have relied on general consequentialist arguments rather than limiting them to the public sphere or to officials. The effects of torture by officials would nevertheless be much more extensive than if inflicted by a private individual, and officials have a positive duty to protect the population. Theorists have argued that in the real world citizens must limit the powers of leaders, including by absolute prohibitions based on general moral grounds.

Key concepts: Morality, Impartiality, Torture, Political science, Duty, Limiting, Population, Dilemma

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Is there a ‘Public Morality’ that is Distinct from ‘Private Morality’? — Research Paper | ScholarLens