There are few philosophies that have proven more damaging for humankind than those that honor the brutish axiom ‘the ends justify the means’. Countless revolutionaries, religious zealots, and intellectuals have grown hoarse describing the wonders that could be attained if people were just willing to let down their inhibitions and seize them. ‘Why waste time worrying about the unsavory details,’ they say, reasoning that the glorious fruits of the realized end will surely blot out the few ‘minor’ moral transgressions incurred to obtain them.
This serpentine logic continues to tickle the ears of many, merely shifting its guise according to the tastes, sensibilities, and preoccupations of the time and place. So while the barebones logic that underpins this philosophy may appear archaic, it is alive and well.
What is most alarming, however, is that upon examining the political calculus employed by current policymakers one finds that it is peppered with the latest reincarnations of this school of thought.
Why is this?
To address this tantalizing question this post adopts a two-fold approach. First, the flawed assumptions that underpin this time-revered maxim are dissected, and, secondly, the reasons for its continued appeal.
A Fairy Tale Assumption in the Guise of a Realist’s Theorem
‘The ends justify the means’ has immense appeal. To many its logic appears unassailable, self-evident, and – most of all – accessible. After all, who would object to a few moral hiccups when the end is so obviously righteous or the dirty deeds sure to be overshadowed by the glory of the achieved end.
But will they?
What makes the axiom ‘the ends justify the means’ so deceitful – and yet so appealing – is its assurance that the desired end will be achieved. This is also why, as a philosophy, the idea is inherently unsound. For, if anything is uncertain, it is the future. To predicate the morality and worth of one’s actions solely on the achievement of an uncertain future end is a fool’s errand, as it literally stakes the morality and identity of the individual on something no person has control over or can possibly foretell.
And what makes this formula even more insidious is its tendency to give license to the most egregious wrongs under a false aura of moral exigency, assuring the transgressor that somehow their misdeeds will magically result in the achievement of a noble goal.
In short, far from being practical or realistic, the notion ‘the ends justify the means’ is, when it comes down to it, wholly impracticable and quixotic. It beckons unsuspecting victims to construct their lives upon an edifice of unfounded expectation; with utter composure and self-assurance the end is assumed before the first step towards it is even taken.
The Allure of the Gilded Lie
‘So the assumptions encompassing the formula ‘the ends justify the means’ are problematic, but surely this formula is not used by top policymakers,’ you might say.
While it is true that no official would be caught dead professing their faith in this coarse maxim, such qualms have more to do with a politician’s grasp of what is palatable to the general public than an actual refutation of the ideas embedded in this philosophy. It is important to remember that while the face of this philosophical current may shift according to the tastes and sensibilities of time and place, its general principles remain essentially intact. Even a cursory review of top government policy betrays the presence of this reasoning, albeit under a thin veneer of ‘realism’ or other oily jargon.
In recent history, perhaps the most odious example of this faith in action has been the government’s expansion of its extraordinary rendition program, through which the government abducts suspected “terrorists” wherever and whenever it feels this is to be “necessary”. The torture and warehousing of human beings upon the shallowest of pretenses has and continues to be justified by the oft-touted specter of more terrorist attacks if these “dangerous criminals” were to be released – the so-called “ticking-bomb” dilemma.
The problem with this “dilemma”, however, is the fact that not a single terrorist attack has been verifiably prevented through the program of extraordinary rendition. Like the barebones ‘the ends justifies the means’ idea, the “ticking-bomb” dilemma takes a desirable end for granted in order to justify the most heinous devices in the interim period (they are basically the same idea, one just dressed according to current tastes).
And, again, it proves to be impracticable. The International Committee of the Red Cross and even the military’s own internal reports have admitted that upwards to 90% (and likely more) of those detained at the American gulag in Guantanamo Bay are totally innocent.
Hannah Arendt has brilliantly detailed these problems – which she deems inherent in using implements of violence – in her tract On Violence, explaining that:
“The very substance of violent action is ruled by the means-ends category, whose chief characteristic, if applied to human affairs, has always been that the end is in danger of being overwhelmed by the means which it justifies and which are needed to reach it. Since the end of human action, as distinct from the end products of fabrication, can never be reliably predicted, the means used to achieve political goals are more often than not of greater relevance to the future world than the intended goals.”
To put it more plainly, the ‘ends justify the means’ formula fails to take into consideration how the means directly determine the ends, taking the ends for granted. Consequently, if violent and hateful means are used, they will probably result in violent and hateful ends, and vice-versa. Or, as Arendt put it, “The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world.”
In short, to expect peace and love to be achieved through violence and hatred requires someone to entertain a contradiction of grotesque proportions.
Why then do policymakers fall into this trap?
Broadly speaking, pride, ignorance, and an unhealthy faith in the efficacy of raw violence to achieve a desired result often and easily coalesce, creating a powerful inducement for orienting policy along the lines of this terrible creed. And, even if the desired end happens to be achieved, the opening of Pandora’s Box can arouse inexhaustible paranoia within those who have attempted to wield violence or other evil means, spawning a Reign of Terror.
This last effect is seldom noted by historians or philosophers, but is of profound importance for understanding why this philosophy is riddled with internal contradictions and, frankly, imbecility. To explain this phenomenon, an example from modern history shall suffice, in this case the ascent of the Bolshevik Party in Russia.
The history of communist power in Russia during the 20th century is arguably the quintessential example of the ends-means problem. Lenin’s idiosyncratic reading of Marx and his own views on how history was ‘naturally’ meant to progress were so iconoclastic and bizarre, in part, because the Bolshevik’s many predictions about the inevitable march of history generally failed to take form. What followed was a schizophrenic merger of these ideologically-driven predictions with selective adjustments meant to address unforeseen present conditions. More succinctly, the initial values and promises of the February and October Revolutions were utterly betrayed.
However, let us get back to the role of paranoia in the ‘ends justify the means’ equation. Upon entering power, Lenin, Stalin, and their hirelings all employed violent methods for keeping ‘order’ and rooting-out enemies. Yet once the fears that enabled them to use violence were kindled they were very difficult to suppress, eventually metastasizing like a malignant cancer.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago masterfully portrays this ever-present fear which knawed at the souls of those in authority and beneath it alike, resulting in collective spiritual and moral entropy. Every action of those at the top came to be defined solely by their desire to stay on top; out of the maw of the disaffected masses, upon whose backs they dwelled in an atmosphere of elusive security. Solzhenitsyn writes that:
“At no time have governments been moralists. They never imprisoned people and executed them for having done something. They imprisoned and executed them to keep them from doing something.” (243).
The initial decision to wield violence and ‘temporary’ immoral means thus proved a slippery slope, giving way to larger fears and self-fulfilling prophecies of ever-intensifying disaster and ruin.
What Does This Mean?
Since the notion that ‘the ends justify the means’ is hopeless flawed it should be thoroughly disposed of. As America’s experience at Guantanamo and Russia’s experience under communism have shown, violence and immorality cannot simply be tempered or used discretely. It is an all or nothing weapon since the slightest foothold to violence ineluctably gives way to ever greater depths of spiritual degradation, suffering, and paranoia.
Instead, the means must mirror their desired end; and this is the genius of nonviolence protest. As Martin Luther King Jr. explained, “True peace is not merely the absence of some negative force – tension, confusion, or war; it is the presence of some positive force – justice, goodwill, and brotherhood.” By embodying the result one desires you actually begin to breathe it into existence. You may not be able to foresee the future, but you can certainly control how you personally contribute to it by your behavior in the present.
And while the corrupting dynamics of power may prevent governments from ever pursuing such a policy, it certainly has great hope for those who are not in power. In fact, it is the most powerful tool of all for those who are exploited or marginalized since it affords them something that no institutional power can effectively create or imitate: the moral high-ground.
In the timeline of eternity, this is something that no oppressive power can effectively stifle or blunt.
No comments:
Post a Comment