The End Does Justify the Means


Few days pass between the times I hear someone disparagingly say, “Yes, they believe the end justifies the means.” They don’t know what they are talking about. They have not thought about what they are saying.

The end does justify the means. It is always what justifies the mean, we just don’t realize it. We commonly misunderstand what our disturbance is really about. Were we to attain conceptual clarity, we would realize the problem lies in a disagreement about the appropriate ends.

If the end, if the goal, is to convict the accused in a court of law, any means is justified if it leads to conviction. If the end--goal, purpose--is to achieve a just society, we may use only those means that will lead to that end. Once again though we may use any means that will in truth produce a just society. Our real issue is always one of ends.

Adolf Hitler was justified in the death camps since his goal was to develop a pure Aryan race of people in Germany or Europe. Our problem with Hitler is our disagreement that this is an appropriate end. If Hitler’s actual goal was to restore stability, a lasting stability to the economic and social life of Germany, he used the wrong means. They only seemed, for a short time, to justify the means he used. It remains true that his chosen means could not achieve a civil society as its end.

The idea that the end justifies the means is often identified with pragmatism, simplistically understood as, “whatever works is right,” or “whatever works is the truth.” Again, I affirm the validity of the pragmatic understanding of life. The real issue at stake here is tied up in two concerns: how do we understand works, and, the question of time?

Are we talking about what seems to work in the immediate situation, or are thinking of what works in the long run? The difference is enormous. The American pragmatist philosophers, Peirce, James, and Dewey, were considering what works “in the long haul.” This is quite different from what seems to work in the instant.

Here we see the nature of pragmatism and the ends/means question converge. If for a student, the end is simply to make an “A” in the class, and if cheating works--accomplishes an “A”--then cheating is justified by the grade received. It was the “right” thing to do.

Few would concede that making an “A” in school is the end of human being and doing. If, on the other hand, the end is to become an educated, trained, and skilled person, cheating will not work. That means cannot accomplish that end. It is wrong. If the end is to become a person of character and integrity, productive and responsible in private, business, and civil life, cheating on a test won’t work. That means prevents us from attaining the desired end.

Means and ends always exist in relation to each other. As Hegel indicates, the means are aufgeheben (caught up and remain) in the end, thus some ends cannot be achieved by some means. Means enter into the ends they are instrumental in reaching. They continue to participate in the end itself.

If your goal is an angel food cake, you may use any list of ingredients and any method of preparation, if it produces a genuine angel food cake. But not just any means will fit your purpose. Two tablespoons of cayenne pepper, or baking at 150 degrees for twelve hours will never produce a satisfactory dessert. On the other hand, there are many variant recipes for angel food cake and many of them produce a delicious treat. Especially with strawberries drizzled over the top.

Because Christians are in the forefront of condemning those who act as if they believe that the end justifies the means, I add one more example to illustrate the fallacy of their condemnation. If the kingdom of God is the ultimate end of human life, indeed of human history, then anything may be done that leads to that result.

We are free to act, believe, or lead others in any fashion imaginable, if and only if, it leads to the rule of God–the Kingdom of God--in our world. On the other hand, no act, belief, or leadership, however trivial, is justified if it contributes nothing at all to making this world more of what God desires and intends.

Pragmatism is not the only view that understands what is here at issue. Situation ethics agrees completely, in fact, it includes pragmatism as one of its basic premises. Actually many ethical theories begin with a consideration of the Summum Bonum, the greatest good. They start with the question, “What is the end/goal/purpose of human life?

If ethics is to tell us what we must do if we are to be good, it must first define the nature of the supreme good. However it construes “good,” it then sets out a system on how we may attain that end. The ethical system that develops is valid only if it serves as a means to the formation of good people who perform good deeds and are capable of making judgments about the deeds and character of others.

As I said, situation ethics is a special instance of this kind of teleological approach to morality. People condemn situation ethics because they have come to see certain rules and principles as ends in themselves rather than as means to the Summum Bonum.

Situation ethics--like its kindred idea, relativism--is a term used quite loosely. Certainly many use it as an excuse to justify behavior that is highly questionable. But if we recognize that the term came into popular usage in the 1960s after the publication of Joseph Fletcher’s controversial, Situation Ethics, we are obligated to understand the idea as he first developed .

Few have taken the time to give the book a thoughtful reading. I admit that the style of the book is a major hindrance to understanding what Fletcher argues. Apparently in an effort to make it the best-selling book it was, Fletcher filled it with illustrations of its application in sexual morality. He seemed to justify a variety of sexual situations in a way that disturbs many readers who want to be fair with his thought.

The fact is that Fletcher’s generous use of example situations to illustrate his point accomplish the exact opposite. They obscure the ideas that are the heart of the book.

One of Fletcher’s dominant ideas is that we can’t pre-scribe what action is right until we are in an actual situation. Verbal examples, such as he mistakenly included in his book, are not actual life situations, no matter how completely they are described. If Fletcher were consistent with his guiding principles, his examples would have been excluded or, at least, greatly qualified. As it is, they confuse. But, of course, they do maintain interest and did help sell the book. Most of the controversy was occasioned by the misleading “illustrations.”
_______________

In the entire biblical narrative, we see God in action and hear God speaking, always, in relation to a specific situation, an actual occasion. What is right or wrong depends on God’s judgment in this particular situation.

The end desired by God never changes. God’s goal, purpose, end, is that his way–self-giving love--should rule, control his entire creation, producing in the end a universal community of peace and joy. Again, if we carefully examine all God does and says in the scriptural story, we find that he uses any means that will, in the long haul work–and some of these make us wonder about him–to accomplish his intention.