Does The End Justify The Means?

There was an unsuccessful attempt on Hitler's life (one of many) on July 20, 1944. The motives of the participants in the plot may have varied, but there was agreement on one point – the end justified the means. Hitler was on a path to destroy Germany and all of Europe – and ultimately the entire world. If he could not be convinced to cease his actions by rational debate he had to be stopped otherwise.

One of the oldest questions mankind has asked itself is “Does The End Justify The Means?” Are there situations which merit our violation of “absolutes.”

"If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all them even in a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill

There are many considerations. The issue posed looks like a “yes-no” question, but I don't think it is, although I don't know how to categorize it. I'll list the considerations as I see them just below in outline form, with some questions about them. Perhaps you'll understand my quandary.

1. Absolutes. What are they? What's their derivation? Are there penalties for violation?
2. Ends. What are they? How important are they?
3. Means. What are the means? Whom do they affect. Involved people or onlookers? Who pays the price?
4. Letting everything be. What are the implications of not acting? (See Churchill quote above.) How bad is the status quo?
5. What are the implications for those who act? Does the action benefit them?
6. Who decides all of the above? If it is not a personal choice, whose input, if anyone's should be sought? How much time is needed for a decision? Who participates in the decision-making?
7. I'm sure that more is involved, but that's all I can think of at the moment. I leave the rest to you.

The original question can only be answered “sometimes,” although it's not always clear when. It's not always an easy decision. Was ending the second world worth the cost of those civilians who died in Dresden and Hiroshima, or should other means have been found? Should a police officer always be barred from using lethal force on someone who is unarmed? Is self-defense justifiable notwithstanding the reality that it may be applied out of fear rather than reason? Where does it start and where does it end? And who decides? And when?

Simply proclaiming that the end never justifies the means is virtuous, but it doesn't take into consideration that virtue is not the goal of all mankind?

The hard part is deciding what answer to use when.

It depends on the end and the means. Most (but not necessarily all) would agree that ending WWII justified whatever steps were required. Tens of millions lost their lives in that war because of the insanity of a few.

Do the ends justify what may seem mean? Do we punish children of illegal immigrants in order to demonstrate the intent to follow our own laws? Do we forbid abortion because killing the fetus is the means to the end of happy women? And do we recognize that “ethicists” who claim to know right from wrong are simply acting on their own prejudices.

It's an old but persisting question because it has no answer. We cannot settle it. One size does not fit all. But the knowledge that there is no single formulaic solution gives us room to invoke our own sense of right and wrong irrespective of the certainty of others. As long as that sense is based on full consideration of the situation and its implications, not just on what sounds good at the time.

December 24, 2017