Justifies?

Let's leave the lawyers aside. And the journalists. Otherwise we all agree. The end never justifies the means. Except when it does. Machiavelli was a proponent of that position.ⁱ It was his view that the ends were of primary importance, and you did whatever was necessary to achieve them.

The principle is not simply one of realpolitik. It's reality. My daughter had a baby a few months ago.ⁱⁱ He cries. That's what babies do. It's not pleasing to everyone around. Apart from soiled diapers and other sources of discomfort, he uses the crying to signal hunger. Day and night. That means that neither my daughter nor her husband sleeps very well. The end (the goal, that is – forget the issue of the diaper) is a full stomach. The means is the crying. Not very pleasant, but it works.

And there are those with diseases that require medication. As we've always been told of a medicine, “the worse it tastes, the better it is for you.” It's even worse with chemotherapy for cancer. The drugs are toxic and they make you sick. But if they have a positive effect on the tumor it's all worthwhile. The end justifies the means.

It's not so clear though. Part of the reason is that we don't all agree on the ends or the means. Many believe in unfettered “artistic expression,” even if that means justifying what others consider to be the use of pornography for profit; some view marriage as an end in itself, and would excuse some degree of abuseⁱⁱⁱ as an acceptable cost in order to achieve this end. And there is disagreement about whether sexual intercourse is justified as a means – because new life may result – or if is an end in itself. And the arguments about religion, contraception, and evolution complicate the issue still further.

Perhaps the most striking example of the problem, however, relates to one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shall not kill.” It's not really clear what that means – whether, for example, it exempts self-defense, or war. It isn't absolute, since the Bible itself speaks of death penalties and the like. But there are many who would ban the practice of capital punishment while others, although they may view it as a sad means, consider it a justified method to achieve the ends of lowering the murder rate and punishing abominable crimes. For some it's simply a regrettable necessity (to save face, for the sake of pride, to punish evil, or a combination of these and other motives).^iv Whether they're right or not isn't the point. They accept the means of achieving the end.^v And in many jurisdictions, capital punishment is well established, with the United States Supreme Court accepting it as legitimate.

If society can legitimately kill, however, how does that apply to its members? Paul Kersey^vi believed that he was justified in acting as a vigilante, and a number of apologetic movies followed his. A decade later, with the subsequent approval of the public, Bernhard Goetz meted out his own form of justice in the New York City subway. And the technique worked. The end was accomplished by means which were questionable at best.^vii But the end was accomplished.

Vigilantism, however, is not a new phenomenon. Ancient societies permitted, and sometimes encouraged, retribution for criminal acts. In the Bible^viii we read the story of the rape of Dinah and the retribution taken by her brothers for the crime.^ix Indeed, what we view as an unspeakable crime, murder, is often viewed by their proponents as a necessary and justifiable “honor” action. That the punishment may be given the victim in addition to – or instead of – the perpetrator does not mitigate the idea that the means – perhaps a killing – is warranted in order to achieve the end of regaining the family's honor.

No. It's not so clear. It's not clear because we live in a “multicultural” world, and we disagree both about what constitutes and what justifies means and ends, and about what qualifies as acceptable or even obligatory behavior. It's even uncertain in more homogeneous settings because people have different levels of tolerance for “deviant” behavior even when their backgrounds are similar. Or they may disagree over the basic question regarding the justification of means for worthy aims.

But I'll deal with that next week.

Next episode: “The Means” – Next week. The final installment dealing with this question.

I        The Prince, by Niccoló Machiavelli, 1532. In reality there probably was a Latin version available as early as 1513, but the first actual printing was in 1532 and in Italian.

ii        Her sixth.

iii      It is important to remember that abuse is not always physical, whichever partner may initiate it. Verbal and psychological abuse may be perpetrated by an individual who fears loss in a physical battle. In many ways the “henpecked” husband is analogous to the “abused” wife.

iv      For example, Marshal Will Kane of Hadleyville, New Mexico Territory, in High Noon.

v        The same question may be raised about other forms of punishment. If there is a high recidivism rate indicating the unlikelihood that rehabilitation is occurring, incarceration is simply a way of getting criminals off the streets using warehousing as our means of accomplishing that end.

vi       The Charles Bronson character in the Death Wish series.

vii      “The bumper stickers were everywhere in NYC - 'Ride with Bernie -- he Goetz 'em'! The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically -- so much so the authorities even held back the numbers -- the truth hurt too much.” – So wrote the Huffington Post, February 21, 2015.

viii     Genesis chapter 34.

ix       Interestingly the name Dinah is the homophone of a Hebrew word for “the law.”