With Dignity and Humanity for All
An article I read last week contained the phrase “the ends justify the means.” The article did not endorse it. In fact, it implied it was a poor way to assess a moral choice, but it made me think about the phrase. This idea says that the desired outcome may be so worthy that a person is justified in using any means to achieve it. “Means” is another word for action. I’m thinking of lying, cheating, or violence as the more common of these undesirable acts. These tactics hurt others, then we use the outcome as an explanation and defense for our behavior.
We teach our kids not to lie, cheat, or harm others. We feel hurt when these things happen to us. But sometimes, if the goal calls loudly enough, we do these things anyway. It just seems acceptable at the moment. Circumstances align, and the logic, or faulty logic, of the justification kicks in. Usually, we feel a little bad about it afterwards.
This is part of being human: we fail, but we aspire to do better. We make bad choices, regret them, and learn. I have always felt that these actions are outliers, not a way of life for most people, but maybe my view is naive. It seems like the world has become meaner. Maybe it is that I am older and I idealize a glossed-over and kinder past, but I sense that dishonesty, cruelty, and selfishness are more common now. COVID certainly changed the way we relate to each other. Social media seems to view all means as legitimate options. I’m saddened by it. The ends-justify-the-behavior idea is not just an academic concept for an ethics-curious guy like me to explore. It feels like a real problem, one worth digging into.
Our US leaders and some of the wealthiest citizens promote the view that they can do whatever they want. Their wants, the ends they seek, are all that matters, especially if others pay. Our president lies nearly every time he speaks, engages in likely fraudulent, conflict-of-interest type actions, and attacks people he sees as weak. His wealth and power have soared while in office. Lately, he has found that war and military violence seem to suit his ends too. I imagine he believes that having any qualms about the means employed is for weaklings.
This orientation, this driving towards the all-important goal, regardless of damage and harm, requires two elements. One, as mentioned above, is the goal itself. It must be an outsized want; one so desirable that it spurs lust in a person’s urgency and tunnel vision in one’s perspective. The shiny goal calls to them, and they pursue it callously.
The second element, and this is huge, is a disregard for those people who might get hurt. I alone matter; you do not. The people affected are more like scenery or non-player characters. They are of no consequence. That all humans have intrinsic value is a foreign and false concept to them. This is not a recent phenomenon or unique to the current administration. People often depict the “Other”, frequently an enemy in war, in subhuman terms. Harm for some doesn’t matter because “They” don’t matter. It is much easier to hurt someone you have dehumanized.
I hear people criticizing or diminishing another group. Our US leadership delights in segregating humanity into various classes, with some being of low value and others at the top. I see this in their comments about foreigners, Democrats, women, LGBTQ+ people, the poor, various races, anyone they don’t prefer. They fuel the narrative that there is a deserving “We” and a threatening and undeserving “They”. The special “We” group has license to lie, cheat, and harm people in service of the goal, while the “They” better not follow suit.
The ends justifying the means excuse is hard to accept if you recognize the full humanity of all involved. When we recognize the basic value, a common dignity in all humanity, we are less likely to choose ends-over-means selfish acts.
Much of what I am criticizing here is extreme self-centeredness, narcissistic behavior. But there is another situation in which this happens. We don’t lie, cheat, or harm others solely because we are selfish. Sometimes we choose this sort of means because we believe the end we seek is truly good and benefits society in meaningful ways. Someone may see a cause as being very righteous, and this may lead them to think they should do anything to bring it about. To me, these well-intentioned, big-goal, type situations are even scarier than simple selfish ones.
Last year I wrote an essay series exploring some morality questions, and in one essay, number 5 in the series, I considered the phenomenon in which someone thinks they are doing good by bringing about an idealized outcome even when doing so inflicts lots of harm and suffering. I called this outlook warped morality. “The warped morality view says immoral actions are justified by what they achieve.” Further, I offered: “I can imagine a situation in which someone would allow themselves to do almost anything to bring about something they see as a public good.”
Think of the fanatic, a zealot, who will do anything to advance their cause. My mind goes toward religious types or cultish behavior when I consider this. It can happen. Longing for the desired change for humanity can be a powerful force, one that blinds people to the harmful effects. We should be wary of well-intentioned, passion-fueled goals that dismiss the consequences of obtaining these goals.
That supposed greater-good type of intent I mentioned is a possibility, but how likely is it, really? Let’s be honest, most people resort to these tactics for selfish reasons: to win, to get rich, for power. Self-centeredness and the lure of the goal dominate. Do whatever it takes. It is unspoken that doing whatever it takes means doing whatever it takes to someone else.
Whether one chooses these tactics to gain power, make money, or to bring about a supposed better state, the equation is the same. Selfish or otherwise, they dismiss destructive consequences because of a perceived good. Consequence is really too clean a term. They disregard the dignity and humanity of the people they hurt.
Besides lying, cheating, and violence, there are other, more subtle illustrations of the play between ends and means. It happens any time the end is used to excuse the ensuing detrimental effects. For instance, excusing environmental degradation and pollution is an example of an ends-justify-the-means situation. Some would advocate that polluting a river or the air is justified by the benefits that go to the firm and the continuation of factory jobs for the community. The supposed greater good justifies the cost, which is the degraded water or air. They will say it is about tradeoffs, weighing benefits against harm. Often, though, the benefits accrue to one group while the harms accrue to another. Also, these situations assume undesirable means are necessary to achieve the end, and that is not always the case.
This ends-means approach outlook loosely falls under a broad category of ethics called consequentialism. Britannica says this is “the doctrine that actions should be judged right or wrong based on their consequences”. You may have heard of utilitarianism. This is an affiliated idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its resulting outcomes. Moral actions produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is thought-provoking, and I see the appeal in its simplicity and nobility of the goal, but I think it assumes a lot of forbearance and wisdom on the part of the actors.
The idea of using the ends to justify the means assessment feels like a poor way to judge moral versus immoral actions. That the assumed goodness of the outcome pays for the harm incurred is too simplistic. That ill effects are just the price we must pay to get the good outcome feels too easy. I am bothered by this view because it doesn’t look closely enough at the action itself. If lying, cheating, and harming others are bad, we should think of these as bad regardless of who is doing it, for what end, and who pays the cost. We should evaluate the moral quality of the action independently of who does it and with skepticism about the lure of the sought-after outcome.
I would be a bigger fan of the approach if the negative consequences fell on the same group that reaped the benefits. Sadly, in the real world, the benefits often pass on to a different group of people than those who suffer the consequences. “They” suffer the means by which “We” enjoy the ends. Net consequences, particularly unevenly distributed ones, are not the best yardstick of a moral choice.
The ethics guide I advocate, and wrote about in Natural Wonders, is one more aligned with the philosophy of Immanual Kant. In his Categorical Imperative, he says, “Act only according to the maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” His view on morals put the focus on the action itself rather than the outcome. Is it good to do if others commonly do it, or is it not? I built on his view and developed The Life Ethic (TLE).
The Life Ethic says: We should act in such a way that if all life acted this way, the Universe would be a better place for life to exist and grow…It says there is equality among us. There is not one set of rules for some and different rules for others,,.I added a statement of what we should direct the behavior toward. It is an explicit goal, a goal of living your life in a way that if everyone acted similarly, the world would be a better place for life to exist and grow. The challenge is that everyone includes everyone, not just us or our allies.
You can see that TLE sets a very high threshold for what actions are acceptable and how we conduct ourselves. It is a tough standard to meet. It is certainly aspirational, but it is a thought process we can use to sort out these ethical situations.
I suggest we process the specific details of each situation through TLE’s function box to better see whether it is a good choice. Remember the concept of a function box? Picture a grade-school drawing of a math function: it shows data going in, then processed by rules, and coming out as results. I suggest we use The Life Ethic as our function box to help us figure out what actions are best.
One tactic I really admire, which fits well with TLE, is the technique of passive resistance. This includes civil disobedience, peaceful protests, and other actions in which people refuse to comply with what they feel are immoral orders. It means thoughtfully choosing your means in order to remain moral while pursuing your desired goal. It is keeping an eye on the end but also an eye on the means used to achieve it. Valuing both. Using passive resistance, people can passionately pursue their goals, knowing that the means and tactics they use pass this Life Ethic test. The means here need no justification.
It is much more impressive to achieve your goal through passive resistance than by short-cutting the process through violence or deceit. Accomplishing your goals through persuasion, perseverance, and a dogged refusal to fail is inspiring. These peaceful but persistent tactics are so much more heroic than using lying, cheating, and violence to achieve the desired end. Another beautiful element of these methods is that they affirm the humanity of all involved. The honorable tools work. They just take more patience, smarts, and endurance.
When we refuse to comply, steadfastly resist objectionable orders, we choose not a weak but a powerful approach. Passive resistance is an action that, if everyone used it, would make the world a better place for life to thrive. Jesus, Ghandi and MLK found the best way.
Society is full of stories of heroes vanquishing foes. People often pose the narrative as good versus evil, with all the tools available to the good team to defeat the evil one. These stories drip with violence and end-justifying-the-means storylines. The good guy kills the bad guy. No other outcome is acceptable. We heroically slay the dragon, not get it to move along. I understand. These are rousing adventure tales that spur our courage. There is a place for these in storybooks. Sometimes we just want to smack some villains, destroy the foes, but I wish we had more stories of winning outcomes achieved with care given to the means employed.
Right now, I applaud anyone who considers the moral aspects before they act. I applaud them whether they prefer a morality framework based on fairly assessing consequences, utilitarian ideals, or if they consider more of a Kantian principles approach. We can use all moral frameworks now, for sure.
In Natural Wonders, I proposed six principles to live by: Truthfulness, Awareness, Compassion, Generosity, Vitality and Positivity. These six principles are ways to conduct oneself that, if everyone did them, would make the Universe a better place for life to exist. These six align with the Life Ethic and echo the approach illustrated by passive resistance. None of these six principles or TLE call for a balancing of what you get against the damage you need to inflict.
I feel bad for children growing up today who are trying to figure out how the world works and what they value. Role models now show a mean way to live. Self-centeredness on steroids appears to be the model for our age. Hence, this essay. I wrote this essay to make a statement of dissent from the current theme, to voice my objection, and to offer thoughts on alternatives. There are other ways to live, character matters, and that compassion is not weakness. The Life Ethic, the six principles, and employing passive resistance treat others with dignity and humanity and feel like the most useful steps we can take now to make a difference.
