This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

"This is Baltimore, gentlemen. The gods will not save you." --Burrell

For those of you who watched the last and final season of The Wire, you know that detectives McNulty and Freamon basically staged a fake serial killer scare in Baltimore in order to turn back on some much needed funding for their investigation of the Stanfield organization. You also know that Kima--after McNulty confessing the caper to her--tells the bosses in the department of their gambit. Who is right?

I've lately been reading through The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Her analysis of political evil suggested the question to me: in particular, not just the corrupt or fanatical leaders at the top who set the sinister objectives of a criminal state, but more specifically their bureaucratic enablers who pretend they have no moral responsibility for carrying out these orders.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

The Wire presents an interesting application of these questions. We live in a rapidly expanding modern world which is becoming bewilderingly complex. As a result, our involvement in the various institutions of our lives comes to entail a kind of tacit social contract. Obedience to organizational procedures becomes virtually equivalent with morality, since without these procedures, our rationalized and bureaucratized society would likely descend into chaos. This, at least, appears to be Kima's perspective. No matter what McNulty and Freamon's good intentions, she does not believe they justify placing the organization's social contract--particularly a critical organization like the Baltimore police department--in jeopardy.

On the other hand, though we may feel it is important to follow the rules, it is without question a fallacy to equate following rules or the law with morality. There are many laws and rules are regularly called into question in our culture, for instance the death penalty, abortion, and not to long ago, segregation and slavery. For many people, to break these laws was an act of courageous civil disobedience. At least from Freamon and McNulty's perspective I would guess they see what they were doing as a similar act of courageous disobedience against superiors whom they saw as flaccid and corrupt.

Yet, I think there is a third way of looking at this. The ultimate question--what Max Weber called "the ethic of responsibility"--is what will be the end result of your actions. Our world is complex beyond anything our forefathers could have conceived when they developed over the generations our social norms. In this day and age, all one can really go on is one's best assessment of the consequences of one's actions. Under this rationale, was Freamon and McNulty's actions justifie? Did it work out? Plainly, that answer must be no. There was still high rates of murder and drug abuse even though Marlo Stanfield was forced to close down his organization. Did Freamon and McNulty ever have any hope that they would significantly reduce crime in Baltimore? I doubt it. It seems to me that they saw themselves as "doing their job." To do one's job, is really not about social values. To do one's job is something more like an existential value. They felt in a certain sense that they would be failing to live up to a certain notion they had of themselves, that they couldn't be the people they wanted to be if they let Stanfield continue to literally get away with murder. Does maintaining one's individual integrity justify undermining the social contract of a critical organization such as the police department of a crime ridden city like Baltimore?

What do you think? Who's right? Consider this an open thread.

Crossposted from nlnwjiir.

Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to Descrates on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:09 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.