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.

The Lesser Of Two Evils

                                                                             

Language is always changing. Take “compromise,” for example. It originally meant “mutual promiseⁱ to abide by an arbiter's decision.”ⁱⁱ That tells us that it relied on a third party – and used the process we now know as arbitration. Not an acceptable solution for today's problems. Ideally we ask the parties to meet and arrive at a mutually satisfactory position even though it doesn't always work.ⁱⁱⁱ For example, we'd like Congress to reach agreement on a number of issues vital to keeping the governmental wheels greased. But there is no arbitration – no one to force a solution on the two major parties that compete for control of our lives. And, too often, there is no likelihood that the two sides will agree on their own. “My way or the highway.” “Take it or leave it.”  Winning is the only thing. Gridlock. The sides will make no promises and will tolerate no position that is imposed. They will not compromise. (“Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.”) Although the definition has changed, and decision by compromise no longer involves outsiders, compromise still requires concessions, and there are many occasions on which no concession can be made. After all, the lesser of two evils is evil.^iv And, of course, they will not submit to evil.

But in most instances, the choice is not so stark. Extremes may be voiced, but only for the purpose of the bargaining process. They're softened because they cannot lead to the desired solution of the problem. Eventually a settlement will be reached, so it is better to get the best deal as quickly as possible.^v The “two sides” to every story by definition do not coincide so, when a single approach involving both sides is required, some accommodations must be made. And if that single approach is to be attained, if progress is to be made at a time when neither side will agree to its adversary's position, both sides must give. The risk is that they may not do as well later. Better to lose a little, than to lose everything. It is said that a good compromise – a successful deal – winds up with both sides unhappy. Both sides lose but everyone wins.

According to von Bismarck,^vi “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.” At least that's what it's supposed to be. Compromise. Too often, though, posturing, inflexibility and arrogance take over. And when accompanied by the power of veto or filibuster, a meeting of the minds will not take place. And that meeting may not be the real goal of one or both sides anyway. Sometimes compromises are avoided because of extraneous influences. “Hardball” becomes the medium that, it is hoped, will ensure gains in future elections. It's intended to show voters that a person or party believes unequivocally in the principle under “attack”; there's no compromise between right and wrong.^vii And the other side is wrong. There's a line in the sand and it won't be crossed.

When dealing with principles, there's little “wiggle room.” So it's important to realize that most of our positions are preferences or priorities, not principles. A sense of the differences can be gleaned from Jewish practice and law. Because the Jewish people are so widespread – even if not great in numbers – different groups have developed their own customs, and there is wide variance around the world. It is generally accepted that if you move to another community, you give up some of your practices and accept those of your new home. You may prefer your earlier ones but you compromise – those of the community prevail.

All Jews, however, are obliged to obey the mitzvot, the commandments of G-d to humanity. They may only be altered under very limited and well defined circumstances.^viii They are priorities that may only be compromised under extremely limited and pressing conditions.^ix

Finally, there are situations in which no alteration may be made irrespective of the circumstances. An individual may not participate in idol worship, in certain forbidden sexual practices, or in murder, even if it costs him his life. These are principles.

Preferences, priorities, and principles.

Unfortunately too many of those who take a position have difficulty distinguishing among these possibilities. Everything is rendered a matter of principle. At least that's what they say. But if they're honest,^x it is usually really a matter of posturing. They may say “Better dead than Red,” but they^xi don't really mean it. In too many cases, the parties are not wed to their opening positions but desire an extreme one as a starting point.^xii They know the difference between integrity and reality and want to establish the appearance of one as they prepare for the actuality of the other. When they are serious about the desire to solve a problem they find a way to adjust their preferences to suit the circumstances. And even in a desperate situation they can align their priorities to stave off disaster.

There are only two circumstances when accommodation cannot be reached and both reflect the lack of desire to do so: when a matter of principle is truly involved,^xiii and when a politician (or other negotiator), concluding that he has more to gain through a stalemate than a solution, converts a preference or a priority into a “principle.” And he'll sacrifice anything (or anyone) to make the point.

So where does that leave us? We all have different principles – the genuine ones, not those we consider most helpful in the circumstances. That's the real challenge: to distinguish them for ourselves. While we can't abandon true principles, when it's appropriate we should recognize those ideas that are merely preferences or priorities and be willing compromise them in order to achieve a necessary harmony when others have contrary views; most of the time it's possible to reach an accommodation – if we really want to.

Compromise. Live and let live.

Next episode: “Time Flies” – I don't want to keep up with the times.

i       Hence “compromise.”

ii      See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compromise.

iii    A “plea bargain” is a good example of this situation, although too often the stronger party, even if wrong, can force an unjust “bargain” on the weaker. (Sorry for the scare quotes but I don't know how else to put it.)

iv     In some cases, however, evil is inevitable. Much as you might like to vote “No” for President, it is not a tactic that can be expected to accomplish anything. You may refuse to vote, but that won't help either. Speaking out is the only option. It's unlikely to help, but good luck.

v      “You can't fight City Hall.” At least you won't win, no matter what you do. So “Pay the two dollars.” (Unfortunately it's much more expensive nowadays than when that dictum originally appeared in “George White's Scandals of 1931.”)

vi     August 11, 1867.

vii    Or Left and Right.

viii   For example, when there is a there is a threat to life.

ix     Priorities are not as crucial in most cultures, but they certainly rank below principles.

x      And politicians are always honest.

xi     At least most of them.

xii    They also need it to impress their supporters.

xiii  When, out of “true belief,” an individual may martyr himself. Perhaps “principle” indicates a willingness to die for a noble cause (“Give me Liberty or give me Death” and “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”) or perhaps it is a readiness to kill others to get your way even if it costs you your life (as would be the case when you trigger your suicide vest).