The Means

What does it all mean? Should we cheat to win? Is it legitimate to mislead the enemy in time of war? Even more basic – is war itself justifiable under any circumstances? What are the rules and the roles of morals and ethics in decision-making?

First of all, let's deal with the question at hand: does the end justify the means? I'm not even sure I understand the question. I'll come back to that later.

When I was growing up the double feature at my local movie theater was accompanied by cartoons, a serial (cliffhanger), coming attractions, and a newsreel. It was during World War II and one of the terms I remember from the newsreels was “The Big Picture.” Somehow everything that our country did was justified in relation to The Big Picture. We had a world to save and a war to win, and we won the war and saved the world. Hooray for us.

In retrospect, however, some of our actions raise questions in my mind, but we did what we set out to do. And I realize that we did some things which may have been contrary to the rigid principles to which I like to believe I adhere. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I'm not alone in this philosophy. While so many praise diversity and remind us of that morality is relative, though, I don't buy.

Like the ACLU, I believe in absolutes. For them,ⁱ however, the absolutes are Man's laws – at least the ones with which they agree. They claim to be limited in what they can do so they don't do everything; like defend the second amendment. They declare the flawlessness and unchangeability of the Constitution only up to a point. My absolutes are “right” and “wrong,” although they may be more difficult to define. I don't accept the “slippery slope” argument because I believe that intelligent people can differentiate between cases, and don't need absolute laws to decide for them – to deprive them of the opportunity to judge. The ACLU's absolutes would put a computer in the jury box instead of thinking people. At least for the carefully chosen cases they decide to defend.

But if I praise, yet wonder about, our actions in WW II, (and, as it turns out, in other situations as well) I need to examine my concept of absolutes, at least in regard to means and ends. And that examination yields the obvious: the means – the variables for which justification is sought – are the most important consideration. We allⁱⁱ believe the ends we desire to be desirable. As far as we're concerned they're justified, even if others might disagree. So the first question relates to the means. And it also relates to their alternatives. And to how I define “absolute.”

Starting with the last of these considerations, the “absolute” is that the least intrusive method of achieving a justified goal should always be the method used. Since I've already stated that we all consider our goals to be justified, we'd probably be loath to have an outside party make that determination, but that may be necessary (a board of “independent thinkers” – perhaps ethicistsⁱⁱⁱ would be empaneled to make such determinations). In addition, unless you believe that “all's fair in love and war,”^iv you'll probably object to using means which are contrary to your goals.

But there will be times when “the least intrusive method” is intrusive. And there will be times when you may validly question whether you're using “wrong” means to attain a “right” end; are you using fire to fight fire?; will your enemy be “hoist by his own petard?” Would the assassination of Hitler been justified or would it have been an immoral violation of the injunction against killing? It's not so easy.

That raises questions about the end. How important is it? Is it more important than the proposed means – and if so, according to whom? As far as you're concerned, are the means helping someone get away with a crime if that's what you're getting paid for? Or perhaps the use of “technicalities” to achieve that aim? Is it involvement in vigilantism to act against someone being aided by those technicalities to redress a wrong? How pure should you be when facing evil? Must we always turn the other cheek and shoot ourselves in the foot?

The reality is that there are bad people in the world. Allowing them free rein may not be the best approach to deal with them simply because the use of necessary measures to limit or eliminate the damage they do may be viewed by some as a violation of that purity. As I noted above, I don't believe in the concept of a slippery slope. I believe in right and wrong. Defining those ideas may be more slippery than the slope, but the idea is based on the idea that the pursuit of justice is more important than a mindless adherence to rules.

Which brings us back to the original question. Does the end justify the means? And my answer is sometimes – but not as often as that excuse seems to be used. It depends on the importance of the end and the intrusiveness of the means – with a healthy dose of absolutism to leaven the mixture. How do you balance the various factors that affect it? It depends. How right is the end – or how wrong? And the same decision has to be applied to the means. Money certainly is not justification for performing or aiding an evil act, but poverty and the risk of starvation cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. Was Jean Valjean's act necessary?^v Or was Inspector Javert justified in hunting him.

There's no easy answer. But that's the case with so many of our problems. We have to work them out ourselves. We cannot depend on machines to do so for us. And since we write the laws, we have to be sure they're flexible enough to deal with difficult moral problems. Leon Trotsky came as close as anyone to clarifying the issue: “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”^vi The rest is up to us.

Next episode:  "Nota Bene 5" -- Here we go again.

I        And for many others as well.

ii       That certainly includes me. My ends – as well as my sides and middle – are always justified.

iii      “Ethicists” are no less prejudiced. But these opinionated people usually have taken at least one course in philosophy, and have the backing of some media body to broadcast their opinions. And all they are, are opinions which are loudly stated. They're no more valid than what you think, but they have someone's seal of approval all over them.

iv       From “Frank Fairlegh: Scenes from the Life of a Private Pupil” by Frank Smedley. A similar sentiment had been expressed two-and-a-half centuries earlier by Cervantes in Don Quixote, but the wording was different.

v        In Les Misérables by Victor Hugo.

vi       Their Morals and Ours, 1938.