Tuesday, 26 August 2008

The End Does Not Justify The Means

The most sensible thing that I've read all day comes from Christine Smith's blog. Of course, you would never hear a politician agreeing with her words, which only lends them more weight:

In the many issues facing society, a common rationalization for committing wrong, immoral, unjust or unethical acts is that if the greater good is served the relative harm necessary to gain such a supposed good is justified. In essence, people say doing bad can result in good, thus they assert bad becomes good. This has become commonly accepted in politics (as well as within people’s personal and business lives).

Consider issues such as immigration, taxation, abortion, capital punishment, torture, and the use of military force. All present a multitude of possible scenarios and situations in which the use of force is argued or disputed. Must we, then, live our lives in a state of flux, constantly having to analyze each and every situation to determine what is ethical? Are there times when commission of a wrong act is the best choice because the result may be better for the majority? Is morality relative? Can an immoral or unethical act sometimes be the right thing to do if the outcome is deemed favorable?

The final result of an action cannot and must not be the determiner of right or wrong. To allow your mind to begin to accept this falsehood to any degree permits corruption to enter. Do not arrogantly think you are capable of compromising what you know is right and wrong in a situation just because it is difficult, for many well-intentioned people have done so only to later find themselves having accepted degrees of inflicting harm upon others they would never have thought themselves capable. And the core truth is that committing any evil, regardless of the circumstances, is always wrong. Consider history, every horrible inhumanity man has committed against others, was justified in their own mind(s).

[...]

As the Bible warns, “Keep your heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.” (Proverbs 4:23, KJV). Keeping our heart requires diligence as the examples I gave above illustrate, for once we allow even a small degree of acceptance of doing wrong to enter, we become capable of even more. No amount of wrongful actions, no matter how measured, can be justified by one who values ethics, integrity, and morality. Though we may err from always doing so, we can certainly choose to never willingly unjustly cause harm regardless of the positive consequences which could be derived from it.

In any dilemma, the choice you make will either be motivated by love or by fear. Love is bold, strong, and courageous. It will never suggest commission of evil for a desirable outcome. But fear will always try to make you question the decision your conscience first came to; fear will whisper rationalizations to try and make you feel not so bad about doing something you know is wrong - it will lie to you. It will even make you worry that a decision based on ethics and morality may make you become an outsider in the group(s) you affiliate with. Fear will give you all the “good reasons” to compromise what you know is in your heart.

Good is accomplished, and liberty achieved, to the degree one refuses to compromise what they know within is right and wrong. As an individual, you must determine this for yourself. As a nation, the majority of the people’s characters will determine the nation’s actions. On the personal and political, let your will, your character, and your decisions be of integrity - no exceptions.

Never compromise. Listen to your conscience, and all will be well.

3 comments:

Mike_A said...

I think that’s an idealistically glib way of looking at things. Let’s take a soldier in Iraq as an example; he’s manning a watchtower and sees a young child walking towards a group of people, he sees that someone has put a bomb belt on the child. His choices are to kill or at least seriously wound the child or let it get close enough to the crowd for the hidden bomber to trigger the bomb and kill many more including the child. What is the “right” choice? It’s a grey area but the lesser of the two evils is very sadly to kill the child. This isn’t just an example, it has happened.

Or let’s say you own a large company and you’re losing revenue fast. You can do one of two things, lay off a lot of workers even though you know that they would have great difficulty finding other work or you can keep them on and risk your company going under completely. Again how can you pick out a simply “right” choice?

“The ends justify the means” is a loaded statement that congers up horrible thoughts of genocide for the good of the fatherland but in the real, everyday world decisions are not black and white and in some cases the only choice is between two evils.

Yes you should constantly analyze your every situation to determine what is best; yes sometimes undesirable things have to be done for the greater good and yes morality is relative.


PS - is the LPUK site down or something? I can't get in and it was going very slow earlier today.

Patrick Vessey said...

PS - is the LPUK site down or something? I can't get in and it was going very slow earlier today.

Yes, it is. Awaiting ISP intervention :-(

Roger Thornhill said...

Performing an act of self-defence is not wrong. In both cases that holds true.