It’s a tired cliché we have all heard, but have you ever really thought about the answer and all its implications? Do the ends justify the means? How abut this question, also a cliché; can you stick to your guns? My challenge to you in this essay is to combine them. Right now, answer the moral question I just posed. Yes, I know, its abstract and difficult because of it, deal with it. Yes, or no? I’ve done it too; you aren’t alone on this one. I’ll give you some time to think…Alright, now the hard part. Can you keep that answer all the way through?
Let’s first tackle the question of a safe and secure internet. To achieve this, we would need strict controls on content. We would also need to control who has access, when, and keep track of it. In order to guarantee safety to everyone we would need, in a word, censorship. The implications are that we would be inhibiting the purpose for which the internet was made. We would also be opening ourselves to lots of government interference and regulations. Does the end goal justify the means?
What about, not saying it has happened, but what if a presidential candidate accepted foreign interference in an election? You get the candidate you want, but at what cost? Are they indebted to another country? Can they be blackmailed? What about their personal ethics? How does this affect the sanctity of the electoral process? What cost does this have on the faith of the American people in their own electoral process? Do the ends justify the means?
About power transfers, in the early 1900’s a monarchy is not catering to the needs of its vast populace. The faith of the people is shaken by the increasing power of a so-called prophet, and the people are starving in the aftermath of a war. In order to “return power to the people” the officials of the old government from the leader down to their 8-year-old scions are executed. As many supporters of the monarchy are gathered up and either executed summarily or worked to death. Over the next two decades, millions of people will lose their lives to try and secure “power for the people: Did the end justify the means?
The United States is “at war” with terrorism. By expanding the powers of the NSA (National Security Agency) and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigations) we can cost wider nets and ensure the capture of more terrorists before they can strike. Yet, building up and encouraging an infrastructure of surveillance pushes us ever closer to a police state and beyond a preventable point should the wrong person come into power. We risk our nation and freedoms with every expansion in power. Does the end goal justify the means?
There are more illegal immigrants now than ever before in our history. We fear they are taking jobs, not paying taxes, and bringing increased crime to our nation. The current solution is to build a large wall. Yet ours is a country founded by immigrants of on hope; some for religious freedom, some because of debt, and some for trade and economics. Without fail, all our colonies were settled by immigrants many of whom were trespassing on claimed land but did so, nonetheless. A century after the actual founding of our nation, immigration was so important, two gateways were established, Los Angeles in the West and Ellis Island in the East. The symbol of our country, a large beautiful and noble woman not only holds a guiding light into her harbor but is inscribed with words of welcome. Ours is a nation so rich with diversity that if you ask someone’s heritage, not even one will start by calling themselves American. Yet our best option is to wall ourselves off and say “go away”? Think a moment, are we not turning our backs on our heritage? Are we not inverting the very idea of what it is to be American by building a wall? Is losing, or even endangering that justified by stemming the tide of illegal immigrants? Does the end really justify the means?
It is the late 90’s and several teenage boys decide to lash out at perceived tormentors in the most brutal manner imaginable. As a result of their killing spree, American begins addressing the systematic bullying problems in our public schools. Districts are made safer, teachers and parents more aware and for a time and the “right questions” start to be asked. The outcasts have people reaching out to help. By and large, the nations schools are improved. But did the ends justify the means?
Finally, to close this question, I’ll step out of the real world and into the land of superheroes and villains. In Marvel’s Avenger’s Infinity War, the villain is the Titan Thanos. Because of the loss of his home world to starvation and resource depletion he has taken it upon himself to “save the universe” by killing half of every living population to ensure every plant’s survival and prosperity. He gathers 6 infinity stones, each encompassing an aspect of existence and in a single SNAP kills half the population of the universe. Now, let us assume for a moment that doing this ensures the survival and prosperity of every planet in the universe. Does that justify killing half of the universe? Does the end justify those means?
So, did your answer change? Could you stay consistent? Going from hypothetical futures, to the Bolshevik Revolution, to the shooting at Columbine, could you stay the course? I could. Here’s why. In my opinion if you have such a choice that you must ask, there must be a better way. I think the ends should never have to justify the means, because whether its losing who we are or risking something sacred like freedom, no end is worth it. If your means must be questioned, find better way.
Author’s note: When I say the nations schools were improved, I am speaking from the point of view of having been one of those outcasts. I mean no disrespect to those lost in any of the real-world tragedies. I simply am, as always recognizing what I see as hard truths, and addressing them. I also make no claims as to the intentions of the Columbine shooters, regardless of intent, their actions improved the school atmosphere for many, myself included. Still not worth the sacrifice of innocent lives. – CS Cage