It Is Easy To Get Dirtying Hands In Machiavelli's The Prince

Michael Walzer stated in his article Dirty Hand that ‘It is easy to get one’s hands dirty in politics and it is often right to do so”. What important here is that the objectives of politicians getting dirty hands, Machiavelli argued in his book The Prince that if the ruler wants to conserve his position he must need to act badly, if its needed. However, the objective that Machiavelli suggests the politicians to do bad is the purpose of controlling his power for his own private interest, but not the for the good of the public and the state.
Machiavelli says that “If a ruler who wants always to act honorably is surrounded by many unscrupulous men his downfall is inevitable” and if a ruler want to remains his power must be prepared to act immorally.

I would not be in favor the purpose of dirty hands of the politician to win the election, but it should be acceptable for politician who is interrogating the terror for the live of the people, because the terror itself is intended to destroy, as examples given by Michael Welzer's paper, dirty hands. So, my point of stand is that a morally wrong action can be right if only for the interest of

Mostly, it is applied in defending an hypothetical action of torture. The belief that torture must be allowed, if it is required to get information in term of prohibiting the citizens from the death due to any form of terrorism, come along to be cross abroad spread, even to liberals democrats. In an impressive article, David Luban writes: ‘Alan Dershowitz reported in 2002 that “[d]uring numerous public appearances since September 11, 2001, I have asked audiences for a show of hands as to how many would support the use of nonlethal torture in a ticking-bomb case. Virtually every hand is raised.” American abhorrence to torture now appears to have extraordinarily shallow