The Meaning Of Ends

The argument has always existed. Does the end justify the means? And the debate has been raging in our country for a long time. We've seen our own values sometimes used against us. When tyrants have battled us, we are loath to use their tactics against them; and when they use what we consider our “unalienable Rights,” like freedom of speech, to alienate our citizens, we refuse to deny them this instrument. It is, after all, a First Amendment right. Our Constitution guarantees it to us, and we guarantee it to everyone. We will not sink to their level. That's not who we are. Once we start making exceptions there is no end. And if the First Amendment also assures us that we have freedom of religion, and our religion opposes violence, then we have a right, as conscientious objectors, to refuse to serve a cause to which we object.

Those are some of the arguments that favor the idea that the end never justifies the means. But not everyone agrees. For example, when it comes to treasonous speech, there are many who are convinced that it must not be tolerated. In the history of our country there have been many incarcerated for seditious speech; but also those who believe that to preserve our country sedition can neither be compromised nor tolerated. “Right” is not halfway between good and evil, and occasionally we may be forced to use unpleasant means to arrive at a necessary goal. When we seek “right” we are obligated to consider all the tools at our disposal.

In addition, we are taught in the Bible, to Do unto others as they would do unto you. Even those who reject the source are usually accepting of a right of self defense. They usually don't favor the idea of turning the other cheek to an aggressor. That perspective, however, isn't universal. Many draft boards used to question applicants for conscientious objector status on points like this: what would they do if family members or their country were attacked? And do religious objectors accept Thomas Aquinas's view of a “just war?” The issues are complex. Means or ends?

It was a line from a movie. Gore Vidal's The Best Man, I think. And, presumably, from the play that preceded it. There are no ends – only means. Perhaps that's merely the view of an idealistic politician, but there are times when it is difficult to distinguish between them. The First Amendment, for example, guarantees that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. But is that a means to an end, or an end in itself. Supporters defend it strongly, suggesting that any breach in the protection of this right is a fundamental violation of what is due us. It's a principle. It sounds like a means; to others like an end, and that any infringement is a violation of the Constitution, and will challenge the entire idea of free speech.

Is the Constitution a slippery slope? Is it all or nothing? If we make an exception to a "right" do we lose the right? Why take the risk? Shouldn't someone be permitted to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Why shouldn't the “right” to incite to riot be protected? If we make exceptions don't we risk all free speech?

The First Amendment is an addendum to a document designed to be the “rule book” for the new nation created by the Declaration of Independence – a nation of “Free and Independent States.” And the rule book – the Constitution – states that the goal is to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. These are the ends, and the Bill of Rights containing the First Amendment, is the means – the means to those ends. To the degree that the amendments serve those ends, they are justified. But those who believe that the ends justify them under any circumstances are incorrect. Equally, though, those who follow Vidal's dictum are being led astray. The idea that there should be no ends is wrong. It sounds virtuous, but it's wrong. The ends may not necessarily justify the means, but there are some important ends, and there are times when the means must be changed to ensure those ends.

Preserving freedom of speech in its entirety would certainly be a victory for “right.” But it would be a Pyrrhic victory. We'd face the possibility that we won the battle but lost the war. However virtuous we might be, we'd have lost. When the battle is more important than the war, we're likely to do so. And with us, virtue would be lost. We cannot win if preserving a principle results in losing it.

And when it comes to violence, violence designed to provide for the common defence ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, those ends justify the use of violence, the means, notwithstanding the reservations some might have. When we “fight fire with fire” in order to protect our freedoms, we are not choosing “the lesser of evils.” We are not descending to the level of tyrants. We are simply demonstrating that our basic beliefs sometimes – and only after careful balancing of all the available options – require us to take steps which we may, under other circumstances, eschew; but there are times when the ends, principles, are sufficiently fundamental and important that we must do so.

There is an almost inviolable principle in Judaism: the sanctity of the Sabbath. But a threat to health takes precedence, and whatever action is necessary MUST be taken so that the individual at risk will be able to observe future Sabbaths. The end (preservation of the Sabbath) justifies the means (violation of the Sabbath).

So it is with all principles. The more important they are, the more important their preservation. And if they are ends rather than means, the more important the end, the more thought must be given to the justification, and perhaps overemphasis, of the primacy of the means – its inviolability.

The end may not ordinarily justify the means, but common sense cannot be ignored. The means cannot dictate the ends. We need to expand our thinking. As Emerson wrote

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines.

And to expand on Gore Vidal, There are no ends or means, only principles. And we are bound to uphold those principles.