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

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 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.

 

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.”

 

The End

Whatever happened to principles? Whatever happened to reasoned debate? Have we all accepted the perspective of the lawyers we see on television?ⁱ It’s right there on “LA Law,” “Boston Legal,” and “The Good Wife,” among others, and the common theme seems to be that, as so many coaches have put it, “winning isn't everything – it's the only thing.” Right and wrong are secondary issues if they're considered at all. It's all about winning. The rationalization that everyone deserves good representation (even criminals)ⁱⁱ is just so much bunkum. It certainly doesn't apply to those who cannot afford good representation. But for those who can pay, the goal is to beat the opposition, even if you have to hold your nose while you do it.

And I, an ultracrepidarian of the first water (if self-proclaimed experts are so ranked) understand the legal system as one akin to sports. Getting the edge on the opposition is more important than being better than him. If you win, you are better. Virtue is not its own reward – winning is. If you can convince a jury that the party you represent is right, no matter how you do it, or whether it is true or not, you win. And that's all that counts.

All that counts. Yes. The first decision is that your client has to win. Only afterward is a plan formulated as to how to accomplish this goal. It may require the discrediting the opposition – the presentation of “facts” that support your claim and the exclusion of those that suggest otherwise. It may require distortion, suppression of information, intimidation, or “technicalities,” but as long as you achieve your goal and aren't shown to have violated the law or “legal ethics,” you're home free. Or probably not free but very expensive. But all's fair in love and law.ⁱⁱⁱ

What it all boils down to is that first decision. And irrespective of the facts, it is that your client wins. Once the end is clear, the means are inevitable. The interpretation of whatever information is available must justify whatever you've already decided. First the decision, then the evidence. It's like “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.” First the sentence. Then the verdict.

Unfortunately that's the way too much of what we experience originates. The motive is not always venal, and participants would vigorously deny any intent to mislead. They would decry any suggestion that the end justifies the means. They would defend their actions with the contention that they are trying to get at the truth. Lawyers and other physical and mental athletes may put winning above “right,” but those of whom I speak would maintain that what they do is in the interest of truth and right.

Perhaps the largest marketplace for the attitude that the end justifies the means can be found in the media.^iv From a “macro” standpoint that means the bias of the organ itself – the viewpoint of the owner or owners of the organization distributing what it claims to be the news. While we pride ourselves on our free press – on the right of a publication to express its opinions openly – we assume that what is presented as objective news is neutral. That, however, is often not the case. By the selection of subjects and articles presented^v the media tell us what is important for us to know, and by the choices of photos, captions, and headlines they implant their prejudices^vi in us. And all-too-often they use unchecked material if it corresponds to their own biases.^vii Fact-checking is of greatest value when it raises questions about a view contrary to your own.^viii Otherwise it's a luxury that is often bypassed in the interests of the need to “scoop” everyone else while limiting costs.^ix After all, a free press is expensive, so only the rich can make their views known to a wide audience. The piper calls the tune.

So if the publisher/editor/whatever has a bias, and that is almost certainly the case, it will most probably be reflected in the way news is presented. “Journalists” will be employed who use their articles to promote a point of view – subjective rather than objective reporting of “news” by “advocacy journalists”; use will be made of releases from organs known to falsify, with the publication of questionable (or obviously false) “information” in the interest of “balance”; there will be prominent placement of false claims with inconspicuous admission of their inaccuracy several days later – if there is any correction at all; and, since most people only read the beginnings of articles, that will be a good place to present self-serving claims, while reserving refutations for areas less likely to be read like somewhere near the end of the article, especially if it is on another page.

Perhaps the reporters and editors act as they do in order to keep their jobs,^x or perhaps they have sought positions in media organizations that share their prejudices. The bottom line, however, is that the conclusions come first, and the “facts” presented are arranged to support those conclusions. It's very much like law. Discredit the opposition – especially if your own case is weak. Journalistic ethics, like legal ethics mustn't be allowed to get in the way of the mission,^xi especially if they can be avoided. In this case the goal is to convince the audience that your ideas should be accepted.

That's the problem. Our minds are made up. Facts only serve to confuse people so we only tell others what we want them to hear and believe. In journalism as in law, the end justifies the means.

 

Next episode: “Justifies?” – It's not always so clear.

I        I can't believe that the profession would tolerate such behavior in real life.

ii        Especially those who pay well.

iii      The same is true in sports. Whether professional or “amateur” (for example college athletics), they're big money-makers, and bending the rules, or ignoring faulty decisions in your favor while protesting those harmful to your team, are necessary evils. They're not even evil. They're part of the game.

iv       This is hardly the first time I've expressed this opinion and it's probably not going to be the last. We are dependent on information in virtually all we do, and we always want to know what is happening locally, nationally, and internationally. We want to believe what we read and what we see. But the majority of Americans – not only the conspiracy theorists – don't trust the “news” presented to them by the media.

v       There has to be selection since there is not room to present everything that is touted as news.

vi       The TRUTH.

vii      Retraction of a prominently made claim in an inconspicuous location a few days later may not be seen, but publishers' lawyers assure the publishers that it meets their obligations.

viii     It is certainly a FALSE idea that no one in his right mind would believe. It results from the propaganda of the evil, and must be corrected.

ix       A free press is actually very expensive. First Amendment rights are primarily the rights of those who can afford them.

x        Never take seriously the owner who loudly proclaims a “hands off” policy when it comes to reporting the news. Employees don't – they know better. They know what is expected of them.

xi       For the athletes there's the concept of “sportsmanship,” But no one pays much attention to that unless the public complains and there's a risk of losing some of the audience and revenues.