“The End justifies the Means” .... re-re-re-revisited

[TahitiNut]

There is perhaps no more pervasive and long-lasting conundrum in humanity's history than the apologetics for actions chosen and the motivations underlying those actions. As the human ape became more and more entranced by his facility to virtually (if not virtuously) travel in time and foresee some distant and desirable (or frightening future), the question of 'correctness' in achieving some such state has been a constant perplexity.

the end justifies the means

Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes; actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome.

This, in a nutshell, marks the schism between consequentialism and deontogical ethics, at least as rationalized by those who proclaim themselves "pragmatists" (consequentialists for the hoi polloi). It ignores, however, the pitfalls of (1) clouded crystal balls that offer flawed and incomplete views of the actual consequences of some act, and (2) the Natural Selection of "moral values" wherein the outcomes derived from adherence to morals determine whether those values even survive. We should never make the mistake of discarding the moral wisdom of millenia that have survivee the test of that time.

Insight to the flaws of the maxim that the "end justifies the means" is ...

“The End justifies the Means” is a maxim which originated in an accusation made by Protestants against the Jesuits. Although few would openly proclaim such a cynical maxim, it is clearly the conception which justified the atrocities of Stalinism and the use of terror by some who claimed to be pursuing the socialist objective. The idea that some means (such as the use of violence against political opponents, or lying to the working class) which is inconsistent with the aim (socialism, world peace) can in some way serve that end is untenable. There is always some “tension” between Ends and Means – Means refer always to existing conditions as they are while the End refers to how things ought to be. But the means must be adequate to the ends; that is to say, the means must be such that attaining the End will mean the fullest development and flowering of the Means. So the idea, for example, that deceiving the working class could be any part of the struggle for socialism is an absurdity, because the fullest development of the Means (deceiving the working class) could only be the disorganisation and subordination of the working class, the opposite of socialism. On the other hand, a picket line in support of a wage-rise is a far cry from socialism, but insofar as a picket line is a manifestation of the self-organisation of the working class and manifests elementary class discipline, it is a “means” which can be understood as an “embyronic” expression of an admittedly distant “end.”

This is what's meant by the retort that "the means become the ends!" Any future state achieved by some means will, necessarily then, find actions exemplified by the Means commonly chosen. Thus, we find ourselves in a political world condition created by wars in which wars are common. It is an almost certain result of the means chosen.

Today, we have lived under a regime that has found Torture to be a Means justified by some vague and ill-conceived End, somewhat vaguely defined as a "victory over terrorism." It doesn't take a genius to question the difference between a world that includes terrorism and a world that includes torture by the State.

Today, we have lived under a regime that has found it expedient to conduct unwarranted surveillance of citizens, a Means again justified by some vague and ill-conceived End, somewhat vaguely defined as a "safe and secure nation." It still doesn't take a genius to question the difference between a world that includes insecurity and a world that includes secret and unwarranted surveillance by the State.

Also today, we are witnessing the militaristic behavior of a regime which has, just in the last week or so taken the lives of over 500 human beings, convicted of no crimes in anything remotely resembling due process, living in the world's largest open-air prison, justified by the loss of fewer than 25 lives in the last four years at the hands of people proclaimed to be 'targeted.' Just what kind of future do we want where it makes any kind of sense to destroy 20 innocent lives for the loss of a single life under the rationale that the killing will continue until the killing stops??

There can be no End achieved by the Means of waging war on innocents that does not include waging war on innocents!

THIS is the lesson of history! THIS is the moral lesson.
THOSE who cannot learn from this history will be doomed to repeat it.
From those to which more is given, more is expected.

For those who proclaim "those others should do it first!" let me leave this post with the imperative as articulated by Gandhi:
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

(In one short sentence, Gandhi stated everything in this post and more.)

[scarletwoman]

1. My apologies, I am beyond intellectual argument. I can only scream,

The ends NEVER justify the means! NEVER!

In regard to Israel -- if these means are what it takes for the nation-state of Israel to survive, then I declare that it DOES NOT DESERVE TO SURVIVE.

sw

[TahitiNut]

4. To the degree I did a poor job (and I did) of developing the thoughts in my post ...

... it's due in no small part to my own screams of outrage that we're yet again seeing the abysmal moral corruption of an extreme right wing that acts as though "the End justifies the Means" ... while ignoring that the Means BECOME the Ends. The Means, no matter what they are, cannot achieve any future condition that does not include the Means.

So, so, so, so often in my seven years on DU, the most visceral divisions and arguments center around the conflict between consequentialism and deontological ethics. The Gaza atrocities are no exception.

[cbc5g]

14. That's such a ridiculous argument

The ends certainly do justify the means in many cases. Were we justified killing LOTS of people in order to save Jews from concentration camps? Of course.

[annabanana]

18. That is not why we justified the killing at the time.

We did not know the extent & nature of the camps until we got there...

[cbc5g]

21. Okay

Then were we justified in killing hundreds of thousands in order to save the world from Nazi fascism? Of course. These posts here condemning "The ends justify the means" in all circumstances are idealists and don't understand human behavior or the world we live in. I'm sure Hitler would have loved having folks being peaceful and showing the way with peace while he rolled over them with tanks.

Is it okay to shoot a wolf chasing after a boy? Are you killing the wolf or saving the boy? I'd say saving the boy because you wouldn't have killed the wolf if it had not been attacking.

Is it okay for a leader to sacrifice thousands of soldiers in order to save millions of your people? If you want your civilization to continue then your answer would be "yes."

[Greyhound]

27. Speaking of ridiculous arguments...

We did not enter into WWII to save the Jews. In fact, if it weren't for the Japanese attack on us in 1941, we would not have entered into the war at all, at least not for several more years. The People (remember them?) were not interested in "Europe's war" and did not want to get involved.

That is presented as one of the "supporting arguments for the theory" that Roosevelt knew about the attack beforehand and did nothing to stop it.

[cbc5g]

2. And if we or Israel is nuked after trying peace and nonviolence, what will be said?

It's all relative and subjective. Right and wrong is hard to distinguish in our existence. There is no good or evil in this world, only gray. What has been done may be right or it may not be, no one can really know for sure.

If we change to what we want to see in the world, which is peaceful, and we become annihilated because humans naturally exploit weakness, does the means to that end make sense?

Just playing devils advocate...

[TahitiNut]

5. The Means cannot achieve any future condition (End) that does not include the Means.

Period.

[cbc5g]

7. But that's the point by the saying, isn't it? Sometimes those means that are included

May be worthwhile in order for a secure and peaceful ends. Was the killing hundreds of thousands (means) to stop Hitler(ends) justified? Obviously in many cases the ends do justify the means if your ends is your existence secured.

[Bandit]

37. And how is that World Peace thingy working out for you?

Yep every War fought for Peace sure did the job didn't it?

[scarletwoman]

8. When Israel actually tries "peace and nonviolence", get back to me. (nt)

[cbc5g]

9. They wouldn't exist today if they tried peace and nonviolence, it's been war from the start and

both sides are guilty of it.

We learn this lesson early in life. Ever tried being peaceful with a bully? It doesn't work. You can't negotiate with a bully, you can only punch them in the face and show them that you won't take it. Such as it is in life. We look for the ideal world and we attack those who we see as the problem, but in all reality it's both sides that are the problem and they both must come up with a solution.


Gandhi didn't exactly win through nonviolence, he won by attrition. The British couldn't afford having colonies anymore.

[TahitiNut]

11. An argument that depends on conjecture and supposition is a weak one, at best.

Woulda-coulda-shoulda. :shrug:

The fact of the matter is that the Means Gandhi employed are INCLUDED in the Ends achieved. THAT'S the lesson.

[cbc5g]

12. What means that he employed are included in the ends, and what ends are those?

Your argument is entirely based on conjecture and supposition. We just don't know if what's being done is justified or not because we have no idea what ends could be achieved either way.

If we did nothing and are destroyed is that wrong? If we did something and aren't destroyed, yet those means may be disagreeable, is that right?

[Joe Fields]

31. It isn't a weak argument. It's called national defense.

Everyone, even hamas knows that if you fuck with Israel it's going to get really nasty.

[scarletwoman]

13. Your argument doesn't work. It presupposes that Israel *should* exist -- I don't assume that.

If a nation-state can only exist by displacing and killing lots of other human beings, then I question the legitimacy of the assumption that this nation-state should exist.

sw

[cbc5g]

15. I totally agree, I don't think it should either, but that's not my argument.

The argument is about the ends justifying the means and it's entirely relative and subjective.

[Joe Fields]

32. The issue of Israel's right to exist has already been settled.

If you choose to ignore that right, then all other arguments on the Israel/Palestine issue lack any gravitas.

[CTyankee]

40. And what will happen once Israel no longer exists?

The Palestinians will let the remaining Jews have land and resources with which to live? The Palestinians will establish a democracy, just as Israel had a democracy, and allow Jews to worship and to be full citizens? And Jews will not fear being hunted down and murdered simply because they are Jews?

Please paint me your scenario of what happens when the Palestinians get what they want? Will it be what you want?

[SheilaT]

3. I remember as a child

when I first heard "The end justifies the means" I knew there was something terribly wrong with that thinking.

[glitch]

36. It does seem that either people get it instinctively or they don't. nt

[rug]

6. The notion of double effect is also used to justify horrible actions.

"The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. This reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as a merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

[TahitiNut]

10. It is not argued from a consequentialist perspective, however.

It is argued from a deontological perspective in the first 'rule' ("The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.") Further, it is noted:

Those who defend double effect often assume that their opponents deny that an agent's intentions, motives, and attitudes are important factors in determining the permissibility of a course of action. If the permissibility of an action depended only on the consequences of the action, or only on the foreseen or foreseeable consequences of the action, then the distinction that grounds double effect would not have the moral significance claimed for it (see the related entry on consequentialism). Some opponents of double effect do indeed deny that the distinction between intended and merely foreseen consequences has moral significance.

Indeed, any stance that claims that the moral 'rightness' of an action must only be assessed by the outcomes and NOT the inherent moral 'rightness' of the action itself is a Consequentialist position.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "Sacrificing a few to (perhaps) save many." K&R

As the military commandment goes that justifies suicidal behavior. An argument could be made that the soldiers are "volunteers" who knew that they might be called on to make such a sacrifice.

But, the victims in Gaza, and Sderot, are not volunteers, they are casualties of a philosophy that says that "The ends justify the means."

Is it a right act to throw someone over the side of the sinking lifeboat to (perhaps) save the others? Is it justifiable to strangle one of your starving child to (perhaps) save two other of your children?

Gandhi's axiom is beautiful because it throws the onus on each of us as individuals. We can not justify our actions, whether firing a rocket at a village, or firing a rocket at a school, by saying "I am possibly saving others lives in the future". Instead we must say, "I am taking lives". With the emphasis on the period.

The leaders, the bosses, the commanders, always find justifications for the slaughter. No matter which side they are on.

"What if they gave a war and nobody came?" is not just a cute saying, but a challenge to each of us.

[TahitiNut]

17. Indeed.

It's always (conveniently?) about "throw someone over the side of the sinking lifeboat" ... and very rarely, if ever, about jumping overboard ourselves.

It's always about LEGALIZING torture and not about keeping it forbidden and then "saving millions of lives" by bearing the consequences of inflicting torture to do so.

It's ALWAYS about killing the OTHER GUY. Moral? Ha!



This, of course, is not a new conundrum to those of us who served in Nam and had to contemplate what we'd do if faced with the 'need' to kill a child ... the proverbial child with a satchel charge.

For my part, I didn't use the "what if they gave a war and nobody came" as some reason to run to Canada or fight the draft. I merely thought "what if the person sent in my place died or killed children?" ... and got drafted. Sometimes it's about doing the 'right' thing in the 'wrong place.' Moral dilemmas aren't easy. Except for the wannabe sophists in the cheap seats.

[annabanana]

19. More recs for this thoughtful post.!

The "ends" are unknowable, the means are at our fingertips. The very fact that things seldom turn out as planned should be enough to stay the hand.

[TahitiNut]

20. Thanks, luv! (I wish I were more articulate.)

It's very difficult for me to compose my thoughts in this area.

[Mind_your_head]

22. I'm not gonna read all that.....can you tell it to me in "an elevator moment"?

You've got 30 seconds to give your 'schpiel' to the CEO on the elevator..... *GO*

*tick*tick*tick*...... I'm waiting......

[TahitiNut]

24. "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

The Means BECOME part of the world we create (i.e. the "End")/

[kentuck]

23. I call this insanity.

"Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes; actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome."

Sort of like, history will judge Bush 50 years from. We cannot know if his immoral actions will create democracy in the Middle East fifty years down the road? That also, is bullshit, in my opinion.

That is much like saying, "No matter what good deeds the patriots of those countries in the Middle East perform in the next fifty years, we are supposed to wait on history to judge George W Bush".

I don't think we need anymore time to judge the presidency of George W Bush. Arrogance and incompetence, a deadly concoction, mixed in with a good batch of fear and a war on terrorism, have left the people numb, yet relieved, to know that in a few days they will disgorge themselves from this poisoned spirit. The American people have been emotionally scarred and tortured by the last eight years.

""We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

'Nut, Good to see you're still fighting the good fight.

peace

[TahitiNut]

25. I've found that people who already view their acts by their inherent morality ...

... independent of the rationalizations of outcome don't have any difficulty understanding that the End doesn't justify the Means. For those who rationalize immoral acts by claiming a 'good' objective, it's very difficult to pry them loose of such apologetics. Astonishingly, the latter are those who overwhelmingly support Cheney/Bsuh ... and yet claim such camouflage as 'Family Values' and 'Born-Again Christianity.' "Pragmatists"! Yechh!

Shalom, my friend. :hi:

[kentuck]

26. Amen

Friend.

:hi:

[Mind_your_head]

30. I am surprised Kentuck..

You can't pick your relatives, but you can pick your friends (as well as your nose....ewwww, but true!)

[Mind_your_head]

29. .

:freak:

[MazeRat7]

28. There is no "end" and there are no "means"... things are as they are....n/t

[Joe Fields]

33. your logic is skewed.

Ends justifying means has nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine issue.

It is, quite simply, cause and effect.

Or you could also say that one action causes a reaction. I don't know about you, but I would kind of take exception to constant, indiscriminate rocket attacks by my neighbor, who I had just given a bunch of land to.

What the fuck do Palestinians expect when hamas continually tweaks Israel's nose?

[snot]

34. My simpler formulation:

The "ends" DO justify the means -- but only if ALL the results are taken into account, not just the one we think we want.

In most cases, those proposing questionable means fail to take into account all of the long- as well as short-term consequences of their conduct.

[OnyxCollie]

35. Kicked, Recommended, and Bookmarked for later. nt

[struggle4progress]

38. "... The means and methods used to achieve a certain end in the course of time themselves

become the end ..."
Emma Goldman, There Is No Communism in Russia, 1935
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html

[spanone]

39. so two wrongs DO make a right....

[barbtries]

41. good post

for years i've said that if i had to differentiate between the republicans and the democrats in very few words i would say that for republicans the ends justify the means.

myself, i don't believe it. the ends do NOT justify the means. when the means is murder and terror etc, that's what it is. murder. terror. pretty it up all you want by pretending to have noble goals. nobility is lost with means such as these.