![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 25th, 2016 11:52 amI've been thinking about various things of late. Deep things. Which is cool, as I haven't done so in a while. On my drive home today I was thinking about the idea of the ends justifying the means and why, precisely, it is such a wrong idea. I realized that most of us either agree or disagree with it without thinking about it. A priori, I think the term is. I think that a lot of it comes down to how one views the world and one's moral beliefs. If all that matters is the end result, then it doesn't matter how you get there. Also, if there is no accountability then all that matters are the results. That's why in certain systems you end up with rampant cheating. When all that matters is how well you appear to be, then it doesn't matter what you do as long as you get the proper outcome.
I've both read and heard accounts of the school and business systems in China and how rampant cheating, corner cutting, and the like are. The communist revolution stripped away every form of moral/ethical teaching and the systems become one of only results matter. Hence why we had so many incidents of finding lead in almost everything they made for us, poisoned dog food, stuff like that. They make their money, they make their quotas, they cut corners and make optimal money, and thus that is all that matters.
But the more I mulled on it, the more I realized that it's not just morally wrong, but the idea itself faulty from a logical standpoint. Specifically, the idea that the ends justify the means becomes an increasingly bad one over the long haul. Doing whatever it takes to reach the desired results might work once, but it's building upon shaky ground. Not only can the means taint the results (think of how we treat athletes when we discover they've been doping), but it increases the odds of tainting future endeavors. I think of the rampant use of steroids in cycling and how more and more cyclists had to join in in order to continue competing. But increased use also increased the odds of getting caught. And when they get caught, it taints every win they've ever had, even ones that might have been genuine.
I think of it partly like a complex math problem. Getting the correct result through means of faulty reasoning is only good in an immediate sense, but detrimental in the long run, because using the same path in the future will only result in the wrong answer. That's not even assuming that we won't be judged on our calculations themselves (by the ultimate math teacher, at that). Taken another way, say a person cheated on a test in order to receive good grades. In an environment without morals, it would be justified as long as the person wasn't caught. In such a case, the results of good grades without lots of work or consequences would be all that mattered. But even if there were no moral consequences, of which there most definitely are, the results of such actions are not, in fact, so benign. Once a line has been crossed once, it becomes easier to continue to do so, also increasing the chance of being caught, of consequences. It's also detrimental of the sense that having cut that corner denied that person's ability to correctly get the right results later on. You cheat on one test instead of studying, and you'll have a lot more work ahead of you come finals, either because you have extra studying, or have to find a way to cheat again. It can cascade so easily.
I think too of the abuse of power. Often when people speak of the ends justifying the means, this is what they speak of. Doing things for the "greater good", even if they happen to bend/break the rules, or abuse power a bit, etc. How many villains and despots have we seen rise due to such thinking? How many heroes on tv or in the movies do we cheer on when they defy the stuffy rules and do what it takes to catch the bad guy? We nod in agreement when cops on tv pretend to hear something in order to break into that apartment that they know holds the key to taking down that killer, or when they illegally rough up someone to catch the bad guy, or when someone like Jack Bauer tortures a terrorist before their bomb goes off. But aren't those abuses of power the very thing we take issue with when it comes to dirty cops and places like Guantanamo Bay? We say it is despicable to waterboard potential terrorists, yet do not realize that we thought it okay for the hero to do. That is not only the possible potential of justifying the means, but a likelihood given time. The problem is that people are much more likely to take more and more questionable actions over time, not better ones.
Every single president of this country, going back decades at the very least, has successively taken more and more power for their office, and usually with a seemingly good reason to do so. Each side usually ignores, or even applauds, this when it has been in their favor, because the ends justify whatever it took to get there. But the rub is that once the cat is out of the bag, there's no putting it back in.
Maybe, aside from the moral issues, the problem is one of immediate results versus long-term results. I must ponder this some more.
I've both read and heard accounts of the school and business systems in China and how rampant cheating, corner cutting, and the like are. The communist revolution stripped away every form of moral/ethical teaching and the systems become one of only results matter. Hence why we had so many incidents of finding lead in almost everything they made for us, poisoned dog food, stuff like that. They make their money, they make their quotas, they cut corners and make optimal money, and thus that is all that matters.
But the more I mulled on it, the more I realized that it's not just morally wrong, but the idea itself faulty from a logical standpoint. Specifically, the idea that the ends justify the means becomes an increasingly bad one over the long haul. Doing whatever it takes to reach the desired results might work once, but it's building upon shaky ground. Not only can the means taint the results (think of how we treat athletes when we discover they've been doping), but it increases the odds of tainting future endeavors. I think of the rampant use of steroids in cycling and how more and more cyclists had to join in in order to continue competing. But increased use also increased the odds of getting caught. And when they get caught, it taints every win they've ever had, even ones that might have been genuine.
I think of it partly like a complex math problem. Getting the correct result through means of faulty reasoning is only good in an immediate sense, but detrimental in the long run, because using the same path in the future will only result in the wrong answer. That's not even assuming that we won't be judged on our calculations themselves (by the ultimate math teacher, at that). Taken another way, say a person cheated on a test in order to receive good grades. In an environment without morals, it would be justified as long as the person wasn't caught. In such a case, the results of good grades without lots of work or consequences would be all that mattered. But even if there were no moral consequences, of which there most definitely are, the results of such actions are not, in fact, so benign. Once a line has been crossed once, it becomes easier to continue to do so, also increasing the chance of being caught, of consequences. It's also detrimental of the sense that having cut that corner denied that person's ability to correctly get the right results later on. You cheat on one test instead of studying, and you'll have a lot more work ahead of you come finals, either because you have extra studying, or have to find a way to cheat again. It can cascade so easily.
I think too of the abuse of power. Often when people speak of the ends justifying the means, this is what they speak of. Doing things for the "greater good", even if they happen to bend/break the rules, or abuse power a bit, etc. How many villains and despots have we seen rise due to such thinking? How many heroes on tv or in the movies do we cheer on when they defy the stuffy rules and do what it takes to catch the bad guy? We nod in agreement when cops on tv pretend to hear something in order to break into that apartment that they know holds the key to taking down that killer, or when they illegally rough up someone to catch the bad guy, or when someone like Jack Bauer tortures a terrorist before their bomb goes off. But aren't those abuses of power the very thing we take issue with when it comes to dirty cops and places like Guantanamo Bay? We say it is despicable to waterboard potential terrorists, yet do not realize that we thought it okay for the hero to do. That is not only the possible potential of justifying the means, but a likelihood given time. The problem is that people are much more likely to take more and more questionable actions over time, not better ones.
Every single president of this country, going back decades at the very least, has successively taken more and more power for their office, and usually with a seemingly good reason to do so. Each side usually ignores, or even applauds, this when it has been in their favor, because the ends justify whatever it took to get there. But the rub is that once the cat is out of the bag, there's no putting it back in.
Maybe, aside from the moral issues, the problem is one of immediate results versus long-term results. I must ponder this some more.
