When you are trying to achieve something notable, is it acceptable to follow questionable methods so long as you get to a good place? Do the ends justify the means?
When you are striving to achieve a moral end, it is tempting to use any means to get there. It is particularly true if there is some obstacle in the way that is preventing you from succeeding. “If I can just make it happen,” your inner voice might say, “I know the good that will come from it.”
If you think in a strictly transactional sense, this might well be true. Let’s say you have to do a slightly bad thing to reach a goal that makes a significant positive impact. In this scenario, the good that results is much more impactful than the bad that happened along the way.
As the saying goes, though, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you follow the above reasoning, it might well be possible to justify any action, no matter how vile, by expecting an even greater good to result. If that good never ultimately materializes, then what?
A different popular saying illustrates the difference: “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.” The omelette — the positive that comes out at the end — is worth whatever rules must be “broken” along the way.
Occasionally you might well be forced to act in ways that an earlier you might find unacceptable. As you get older and more experienced, you might well take a more nuanced approach. Or is that just a way to justify bad actions? Do the ends justify the means?
Related questions: How do we know we are right? Are religion and morality linked? What makes an action evil? When should you not follow the law?
I work in the field of housing justice. I see some of my opponents — mainly on the federal level — acting unfairly and without integrity. My goals are to increase justice, meaning more people are safely, stably, and affordably housed. I also want to reduce suffering: no one should be forced into homelessness, and we should establish ways that welcome those living on the streets to seek housing and the supports they need to maintain healthier lives and living situations.
Perhaps surprisingly, some elected leaders disagree with this stance. They suggest forcibly institutionalizing people living on the streets who face mental health and substance abuse issues. This approach is ineffective and extremely expensive. At the same time, these same leaders advocate for underfunding affordable housing programs, despite our country’s shortage of millions of housing units for our lowest-income neighbors.
So, what means should I choose for any strategy or tactics that help me reach my goals?
I choose to achieve my goals by acting in a way that aligns with my values. Acting with integrity to my values, I feel, fosters a trusting environment, demonstrating to other potential community members that they should act similarly. More people will support a cause if they believe the strategies and tactics are guided in ways they would feel proud to undertake themselves.
That said, I see some of my opponents acting immorally and deliberately causing suffering to achieve their goals. And some people I deeply respect believe that “breaking a few eggs to make an omelet” is necessary. Not confronting bullies, whether in the schoolyard or in politics, simply signals that their inflicting harm is effective in gaining more power over those who are already suffering. So, some of my allies retaliate against opponents in ways that I see as helpful in the short term, but I feel diminish our base in the long run.
(On a completely different note, can you believe that it took Lee and me 1,182 questions before we reached this standard one? It just goes to show there are many questions worth asking.)