Mar 2008
Do the means justify the ends?
I am surprised by how often this simple idea comes to bear. Do the means justify the ends? Does the result justify how we get to it? I suppose this concept is most easily broken up into its three main linguistic groups: the subject, verb and direct object.
The Ends
It is fascinating how those who would vehemently deny this ideology are tempted by it when the ends are so productive and positive. When the end enables solving world hunger, when it reduces violence by preventative means (phone tapping), or other such positives. Sometimes the ends are so attractive, that the means become irrelevant. In evaluating the means, should we take into account the ends? There is necessity in teleological thinking, particularly in terms of moral development, but for any goal minded individual. If the ends of decisions are not considered, then the means are completely unimportant. The ends are, ultimately, the goal. (Although the means are exceedingly important, they must be secondary otherwise no direction, progress or organized movement could be achieved. Even BASE communities, house churches, and the most organic organizations have a mission.) So, the question then is not “Do the means justify the ends?”, but “What sorts of means are acceptable for the ends that we have in mind?”
The Means
We most often think of means in terms of direct actions that conclude in results. I want to suggest the means as more intimately connected with the character of the individual or organization which is pursuing some sort of telos. The ends and the means are so tightly connected together that they cannot be taken apart to evaluate separately. The means dictate the sorts of ends that are possible to achieve. Peace cannot be achieved with a sword. Love cannot be attained by coercion. The sorts of means we engage directly defines the sorts of ends that result.
The Justification
This idea of the entwined nature of means and ends leads to a reinterpretation of justification. Justification is not solely focused on the result, but on the way to achieve that result. This is part of the ideas of being vs. becoming. The becoming is the end: who we are becoming is intensely important, but who we are now (our being) defines in part who we become. (I leave here only a mention of the supernatural, though at the moment I am unsure how God works in these ways.) So, if one wants to become a virtuous person, or if a community wants to engage in peace and reconciliation, or if a nation desires economic justice and international cooperation, how they are acting in the present defines how those teleological goals will or can come into being.
|