Everyday ethics: Do the ends justify the means? – Reading Eagle

Youve probably heard it said many times: The end justifies the means. I want to suggest the statement is both ethically and practically wrong.

First, who decides whether the end is morally right? You might have an immoral end that no means will justify.

Consider the current end that Russian President Vladimir Putin has in mind as he conducts a war against not only military but civilian targets. He wants to recapture land that might once have been within the Russian union, but in aiming for this goal Russia ends up killing thousands of Ukrainians and hurting Russia on the international scene. The end doe not justify the means.

Second, practically speaking, the ends and means are related, not separate actions. If your goal or end is morally justified, then so too must the means to get there be ethical. You cannot justify using immoral means to reach what you consider a moral goal.

For example, you cannot protect democracy by using immoral means to do so, such as rigging election outcomes through gerrymandering or making voting more difficult for those who might vote differently than you wish. The means are basically anti-democratic, denying the principle of majority rule.

I heard someone today who argued that he didnt vote for someone solely on one issue, in this case it was bringing about a U.S. Supreme Court majority that would outlaw abortion That was his sole goal or end. Or, as he put it, I didnt vote to put a pastor in office. But he did put in office someone who would do more than simply appoint justices to the Supreme Court but take other actions that might endanger democracy itself.

The issue of whether the end justifies the means can be looked at from a different vantage point, that of two traditional philosophical schools.

One great ethical school is associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant, one of the last to believe in universal ethics. His principle was called the categorical imperative, and it meant you were to treat everyone as an end and not a means to an end, a variation of the Golden Rule. There are some imperatives that are universal, Kant argued, such as not lying or not stealing. Measure the means and ends by this imperative dont harm others, adopt a goal that will be good for everyone, not just a few.

Another great school was called consequentialism, from the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. Here ethical behavior was measure by its results.The basic principle was to seek the greatest good for the greatest number, often used when trying to invest limited resources to meet major needs you put the money where the most people will benefit.

Taken together, these two moral principles would suggest that to be ethically right, actions are measured by what the actors intended and what were the results. Its another way of looking at means (intentions) and results (ends).

I was thinking about the ends and means argument recently as I heard a preacher saying he overlooked a candidates ethics because he knew this person wanted to ban abortion, and that was all he cared about. It didnt matter that this candidate was reported to have paid for abortions for his girlfriend. The ends and means were in opposition to one another. No wonder voters are struck by the hypocrisy.

So, heres the conclusion. The end, if morally good, must be reached by ethical means. You cannot separate one from the other.

John C. Morgan is a teacher and writer whose weekly columns appear at http://www.readingeaglc.com

View post:

Everyday ethics: Do the ends justify the means? - Reading Eagle