The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

When do the ends justify the means?  This can be a very difficult question to answer, and it is often not black or white. Almost always the answer is no but is some cases it can be yes.

In matters of Law and the Rule of Law the answer is always no. For the means are required to preserve "Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All" . This requires that we “Give the Devil His Due”. In the play and movie “A Man for All Seasons” Sir Thomas More debates his son-in-law on “Giving the Devil His Due”:

In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would “give the Devil the benefit of law!” When More asks if Roper would instead “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?,” Roper proudly declares “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” More responds by saying “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

In my Chirp “Giving the Devil His Due” I point out that in America this is accomplished by "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". These principles are critical to preserving our Freedoms, Liberties, Equality, and Justice for All, as well as our safety. Not just for the good or bad person, not for the guilty or innocent person, not for the strong or weak person, not for the rich or poor person, not for the powerful or powerless person, but for all persons. Therefore, in matters of Law the ends never justify the means.

In matters of governance the creation of laws, rules, and regulations often justifies the means toward the ends, if the end results are just laws, rules, and regulations. I am reminded of the quote:

“Laws are like sausages. It is best not to see them being made.”
- John Godfrey Saxe

However, once a law, rule, and regulation have been passed then the means utilized to implement the law, rule, and regulation do not justify the ends. As, once again, the proper means are required to preserve "Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All" .

Another arena for this question is in our public policy discourse. As I have stated in another Article "A Civil Society" and “Divisiveness in America” civil discourse is necessary for a civil society. Yet, today, civil discourse is disappearing as one side or the other believes that if they are morally righteous and intellectually superior then their ends justify their means. This can be seen in uncivil discourse and (sometimes) violent protests against those that they disagree with. Uncivil discourse and violent protests that infringe on the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of those that they disagree with. However, no one side is morally right nor intellectually superior. And, once again, the proper means are required to preserve Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Justice for All.

In our personal actions we do not often consider the impacts of our means to achieve our ends. When we do consider the impacts, it is often for the purposes of considering the positive impacts on our family and friends, and to assure that there are no or minimal negative impacts on our family or friends. However, this consideration of harm should be extended to beyond your family and friends to all who may be impacted by your means. Neighbors, communities, organizations, government, businesses, and other groups can be negatively impacted by the means you choose. To harm anyone by the impacts of the means to achieve your ends is not justified. Therefore, choose your means wisely and choose to not negatively impact anyone or anything. For this makes you a better and more responsible person.

In the workplace it is best to not justify your ends if the means will harm your co-workers. Harming co-workers physically is out-of-bounds and you need to be careful that you do not accidentally physically harm them. In our interactions with co-workers we occasionally say or do emotionally harmful things. We should be more careful in our language or actions so as to not be offensive to our co-workers, but we should also not be quick to take offense at another’s comments as the comment may have been innocuous or more likely thoughtless. Privately discussing the comment with the offender is also more helpful than making a public spectacle of the incident. This does not mean that we should not criticize a co-corker, only that the criticism is should be in the form of a helpful critique that will improve the co-worker, or perhaps, your co-worker may point out where your judgment may have been incorrect.

In our goal of achieving advancement and/or pay increases in the workplace we can utilize means that do not justify the ends. This most often occurs as a result of “Office Politics”. Office politics are a given and often are necessary to achieve the goals of the company. But to harm a co-worker to advance your ends is not justified. For you not only harm the co-worker but their family as well. You may also poison the well at the workplace and harm other co-workers and the business by the means you choose. Again, the ends do not justify the means, So, therefore, utilize the proper means to achieve your ends.

The only time that the ends justify the means is in a time of a just war. But even in a time of war we have boundaries as to the means. War is hell and things occur that we would not usually tolerate. The question is if the actions of the leaders, officers, and servicemen are justified, or as Shakespeare has written in Henry V:

Henry:  "Methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King's company, his cause being just and his quarrel honorable."
Williams:  "That's more than we know."
Bates:  "Ay, or more than we should seek after. For we know enough if we know we are the King's subjects. If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us."

A just war can sometimes require normally unjust actions by the combatants (see Using Shakespeare's Henry V to Teach Just-War Principles). But a just war does not justify all combatant actions. This is why we have the Geneva Conventions of War and War Crime Trials after a war. When fighting an unjust war, the ends never justify the means. When pursuing a just war sometimes the ends justify the means. The difficulty is determining if the war is just or unjust, and if the means fall within the conventions of war.

Finally, I am reminded of the famous play and movie “Inherit the Wind”, that deals with the prosecution of a teacher for violating a state law forbidding the teaching of evolution in the public classroom. Defense attorney Drummond turns and points at first to Prosecutor Brady, then to various members of the audience and the Judge, and in righteous anger says:

“I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish!
And I warn you that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!”

And justifying the means to achieve the (good) ends has the same effect as a wicked law. For the means will often be done by a violation of Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, or Civil Rights that negatively impact our Freedoms, Liberties, Equality, and Equal Justice for All.