Does The End Justify The Means? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

The “Here, right matters.” has generated interest from the impeachment hearings. 

Someone said it was the opposite of "the end justifies the means" and said that's what Republicans were about. 

I tend to think it's not that partisan. 

Wondering what you thought. 

This episode of This American Life is well worth the listen. Thanks to (I think) @krista4 for pointing me to it. It's all good but the Act Two is especially interesting. 

You can read the transcript here. Scroll down to the Act Two part. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/671/transcript

The short version: Matt Osborne in Alabama was strongly opposed to Roy Moore's Senate run. And he created a campaign of fake social media to try and bring down Moore and help Moore's opponent win. He makes no apologies for the tactics. 

It's an excellent dive into "does the end justify the means". 

From the end. 

Ben Calhoun

Doesn't it feel like, especially in-- you know, during the presidency of Donald Trump, that the norms are only the norms if most people adhere to them, you know? Like--

Matt Osborne

Well, what is the norm here? The norm here is that Democrats are supposed to go high and get kicked in the knees. That's the norm. The norm is that Republicans play dirty and win.

Is that the norm that we're supposed to preserve? Because if that's the norm that we're supposed to preserve, let that norm die, I say. Burn it down. Burn it to the ground.

Ben Calhoun

So the core of what I hear you saying is that you don't think that it's something that you can combat by example and just say, we're going to refuse to win that way.

Matt Osborne

Oh, look at me. I have clean hands and clean clothes, and I'm standing above you in a shining light, and I don't have any power. I can't actually make any changes. But don't I look good? And isn't that the important thing?

[LAUGHS]

Ben Calhoun

It sounds so harsh when you put it that way.

Matt Osborne

[LAUGHS]

It's all kind of fun and games when the guy many wanted to lose, including me, Roy Moore loses. It's not as light hearted when the guy you want to win loses. 

Pretty fascinating. 

 

[KCitons]

For me, it comes back to the old question of "do you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family"? 

When you do something that has a negative effect on someone else, you must be sure that the other person is benefiting for the right reasons. If you were stealing a loaf of bread from another family that was starving, then they may parish instead of your family. What makes your life more worthy than theirs? 

When it applies to government decision making, the correct decision for mankind is usually very clear. The costs are not. And therefore, may not be as easy as feeding your starving family.

 

[Mister CIA]

Voted "sometimes," but would have preferred a "rarely" choice.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Voted "sometimes," but would have preferred a "rarely" choice.

Good point. I erased the votes and added some more choices. 

I'm not a fan of everyone always has a criticism of the poll choices but this seemed fair. 

 

[Quint]

A close reading of “The Prince” seems applicable here. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The “Here, right matters.” has generated interest from the impeachment hearings. 

Fwiw this was the exchange:

MALONEY: Why do you have confidence that you can ... tell your dad not to worry?

VINDMAN: Congressman, because this is America. This is the country I've served and defended. That all of my brothers have served. And here, right matters.

It's about the rule of law and it's what sets America apart.

 

[Joe Bryant]

A close reading of “The Prince” seems applicable here. 

Can you paste the relevant text?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Fwiw this was the exchange:

It's about the rule of law and it's what sets America apart.

Do you think in other areas, like political advertising, it's different?

For instance, in the This American Life case, are you ok with these tactics if they helped defeat Roy Moore?

 

[Joe Bryant]

For me, it comes back to the old question of "do you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family"? 

When you do something that has a negative effect on someone else, you must be sure that the other person is benefiting for the right reasons. If you were stealing a loaf of bread from another family that was starving, then they may parish instead of your family. What makes your life more worthy than theirs? 

When it applies to government decision making, the correct decision for mankind is usually very clear. The costs are not. And therefore, may not be as easy as feeding your starving family.

Yes. That's always how it seems to go. 

I know a church that focuses on "Majoring in the major things and minoring in the minor things". Meaning they'll spend their time worrying about the big things but for minor things, they won't get too involved with the minor issues.

That works great.

As long as everyone agrees on how to classify every issue.

The trouble happens when one person thinks an issue is major and the other person thinks it's minor. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do you think in other areas, like political advertising, it's different?

For instance, in the This American Life case, are you ok with these tactics if they helped defeat Roy Moore?

I think as for this...

Ben Calhoun

Doesn't it feel like, especially in-- you know, during the presidency of Donald Trump, that the norms are only the norms if most people adhere to them, you know? Like--

Matt Osborne

Well, what is the norm here? The norm here is that Democrats are supposed to go high and get kicked in the knees. That's the norm. The norm is that Republicans play dirty and win.

Is that the norm that we're supposed to preserve? Because if that's the norm that we're supposed to preserve, let that norm die, I say. Burn it down. Burn it to the ground.

Ben Calhoun

So the core of what I hear you saying is that you don't think that it's something that you can combat by example and just say, we're going to refuse to win that way.

Matt Osborne

Oh, look at me. I have clean hands and clean clothes, and I'm standing above you in a shining light, and I don't have any power. I can't actually make any changes. But don't I look good? And isn't that the important thing?

...I think this misstates the case of what is actually going on.

How do I explain this. - We are all used to my guy (Party x) did this but your guy did this (Party y) and we all get flummoxed, right? I just went through this watching a local judge race and it's funny how if you look at things from a local perspective D's and R's act differently. Usually it's stuff like taking money from some donor or corporate interest. Just take it out of the context of national politics and you can see how awful it can be. But IMO that's just typical pugilism.

***

What's happening here is quite different, specifically:

• Attacks on the whistleblower system, which is a legal protection for people's safety. It happens in a wide variety of areas, like reporting crime on the local level all the way to DC.
  
• Using manufactured news stories. - Example - Trump boomeranging the National Enquirer to attack Ted Cruz via his father supposedly being complicit in the assassination of JFK.
  
• Use of public agencies as political weapons - so State, DOD and DOJ are politicized. The FEC is shut down.
  
• The AG and others making arguments about the authoritarian nature of the presidency and defending that and seeking to implement it.
  

These aren't really  situations. This is people who have an authoritarian ideology fundamentally opposed to basic principles of rule of law and democracy. It's not a perspective thing at all.

 

[KCitons]

Yes. That's always how it seems to go. 

I know a church that focuses on "Majoring in the major things and minoring in the minor things". Meaning they'll spend their time worrying about the big things but for minor things, they won't get too involved with the minor issues.

That works great.

As long as everyone agrees on how to classify every issue.

The trouble happens when one person thinks an issue is major and the other person thinks it's minor. 

Can you unpack this? (if you can)

I'm wondering how a church does this. And since my halo is fairly tarnished these day, I may be mis-remembering my upbringing. Jesus didn't classify issues. He helped as many people as possible. He also helped those that came to him asking for forgiveness. If that church can feed 100 people in one country, but only 10 people that are standing in front of them. Are they choosing to help the 100 people?

 

[Quint]

Can you paste the relevant text?

Well, Machiavelli ascribes to a dim view of human nature and in his opinion, it’s better (for a ruler) to be feared than loved if it cannot be both. Thus, cruelty on the part of a ruler, or those who control power, is justified if it benefits the state as a whole (i.e. ends justify means). 

Of course individual views of human nature vary, and it can be argued that Machiavelli is wrong in his assumptions.  

 

[Kal El]

Well, Machiavelli ascribes to a dim view of human nature and in his opinion, it’s better (for a ruler) to be feared than loved if it cannot be both. Thus, cruelty on the part of a ruler, or those who control power, is justified if it benefits the state as a whole (i.e. ends justify means). 

Of course individual views of human nature vary, and it can be argued that Machiavelli is wrong in his assumptions.  

Machiavelli wrote that because he hated the rulers of Florence, who exiled him. The guy was a huge fanboy for the Roman Republic.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think you generally advance the ends -- if the ends are inherently good -- by elevating the means. Though present day suggests that sometime this is a close call, being the more fair-minded party in a contest generally wins more people to your side/cause than the opposite. And, yes, most of the time you should do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do.

Let's look at the decision Republicans have made with elections. They had two clear choices, join with Democrats in making American elections more representative and universal and perhaps winning some converts to their cause, or shutting down paths to citizenship and suppressing votes in the more marginalized parts of the country. They've gambled that the latter policy will allow them to hold onto power when the former is the way to go to win hearts and minds. The ends are as bad as the means in that example.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It depends on the ends and the means.

But if the means are justified by anything at all, it's by the ends. (What else could justify them?)

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think as for this...

...I think this misstates the case of what is actually going on.

How do I explain this. - We are all used to my guy (Party x) did this but your guy did this (Party y) and we all get flummoxed, right? I just went through this watching a local judge race and it's funny how if you look at things from a local perspective D's and R's act differently. Usually it's stuff like taking money from some donor or corporate interest. Just take it out of the context of national politics and you can see how awful it can be. But IMO that's just typical pugilism.

***

What's happening here is quite different, specifically:

• Attacks on the whistleblower system, which is a legal protection for people's safety. It happens in a wide variety of areas, like reporting crime on the local level all the way to DC.
  
• Using manufactured news stories. - Example - Trump boomeranging the National Enquirer to attack Ted Cruz via his father supposedly being complicit in the assassination of JFK.
  
• Use of public agencies as political weapons - so State, DOD and DOJ are politicized. The FEC is shut down.
  
• The AG and others making arguments about the authoritarian nature of the presidency and defending that and seeking to implement it.
  

These aren't really  situations. This is people who have an authoritarian ideology fundamentally opposed to basic principles of rule of law and democracy. It's not a perspective thing at all.

Thanks. But I wasn't asking about the whistleblower or impeachment case. 

In the This American Life case, are you ok with these tactics if they helped defeat Roy Moore?

If you haven't listened to it or read the full transcript, it's really worth it. Then let me know what you think. 

I think it's pretty fascinating. 

 

[Joe Summer]

Usually when people use the phrase "the ends don't justify the means," they are referring to acts which are outside the bounds of the law and/or morality.

I'm not sure if I would put a personal Twitter account into that category, however.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In the Roy Moore example, the means aren't justified. Because many of the ends (such as chipping away at the integrity of our public discourse) are bad.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Thanks. But I wasn't asking about the whistleblower or impeachment case. 

In the This American Life case, are you ok with these tactics if they helped defeat Roy Moore?

If you haven't listened to it or read the full transcript, it's really worth it. Then let me know what you think. 

I think it's pretty fascinating.

I sorta realize that, but you included the line that was explicitly from what just happened in the hearings with Vindman, so I also sorta think it cannot be separated.

To answer the question:

• No I'm not ok with these unethical methods used against Moore.
  

  The short version: Matt Osborne in Alabama was strongly opposed to Roy Moore's Senate run. And he created a campaign of fake social media to try and bring down Moore and help Moore's opponent win. He makes no apologies for the tactics. 

  - I'm explicitly against this. I think it's damaging to democracy and elections. I'm probably open to arguments that it should be prosecuted and in the Mueller investigation behavior similar to this was.
  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Can you unpack this? (if you can)

I'm wondering how a church does this. And since my halo is fairly tarnished these day, I may be mis-remembering my upbringing. Jesus didn't classify issues. He helped as many people as possible. He also helped those that came to him asking for forgiveness. If that church can feed 100 people in one country, but only 10 people that are standing in front of them. Are they choosing to help the 100 people?

I don't want to drag this off on a rabbit trail. As in my example, the fact it's a church isn't important. "Majoring in the Majors and Minoring in the Minors" applies to any organization.

But in a hypothetical situation, it could be something like:

Jason and Kim both agree on "Majoring in the Majors and Minoring in the Minors".

Jason and Kim both agree focusing on helping poor people in town is a major thing.

Jason also thinks they should sing all old school hymns with organ music in Sunday worship service and it is a major thing.

Kim thinks the style of music in Sunday worship service is a minor thing and would prefer contemporary music. 

Jason and Kim now don't agree.

Kim thinks it's not a big deal. Jason thinks it's a big deal. 

That kind of thing. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I sorta realize that, but you included the line that was explicitly from what just happened in the hearings with Vindman, so I also sorta think it cannot be separated.

To answer the question:

• No I'm not ok with these unethical methods used against Moore.
  - I'm explicitly against this. I think it's damaging to democracy and elections.
  

Cool. My guess is most people will say they are against it. 

I'm not talking about you or anyone here, but I do wonder how many people privately would be ambivalent or for it.

I honestly was pretty surprised at how casually NPR and This American Life handled it. 

It's worth listening to as they were literally laughing with it. 

And with a race that close, it sounds like what they did could have been the difference in the race.

 

[KCitons]

I don't want to drag this off on a rabbit trail. As in my example, the fact it's a church isn't important. "Majoring in the Majors and Minoring in the Minors" applies to any organization.

But in a hypothetical situation, it could be something like:

Jason and Kim both agree on "Majoring in the Majors and Minoring in the Minors".

Jason and Kim both agree focusing on helping poor people in town is a major thing.

Jason also thinks they should sing all old school hymns with organ music in Sunday worship service and it is a major thing.

Kim thinks the style of music in Sunday worship service is a minor thing and would prefer contemporary music. 

Jason and Kim now don't agree.

Kim thinks it's not a big deal. Jason thinks it's a big deal. 

That kind of thing. 

Okay. One last question.

What style of music did they go with? 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Okay. One last question.

What style of music did they go with? 

The church split up over it.

Kidding.

It was a made up example so I don't have an answer. I'd hope they would be adults and reach some sort of compromise.  

 

[sho nuff]

In the Roy Moore example, the means aren't justified. Because many of the ends (such as chipping away at the integrity of our public discourse) are bad.

Agree here and have been trying to figure out how to express that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

In the Roy Moore example, the means aren't justified. Because many of the ends (such as chipping away at the integrity of our public discourse) are bad.

For sure those ends are bad.

But if it depends on the ends and the means, don't they all have to be weighed?

Chipping away at the integrity of public discourse is bad. Does keeping Roy Moore out of office outweigh it?

 

[Dickies]

I voted sometimes.  As for the question itself, it would depend on the ends and means.  

For example, starting a farm would be perfectly acceptable if your end goal is to help feed poor people.  Harvesting another farmer's crop without their permission would not be acceptable if your end goal is to feed poor people.

I understand where you want to go with this, and the example provided re: Moore is completely unacceptable to me as I posted in the other "hypothetical" thread.

 

[dgreen]

I voted sometimes.  As for the question itself, it would depend on the ends and means.  

For example, starting a farm would be perfectly acceptable if your end goal is to help feed poor people.  Harvesting another farmer's crop without their permission would not be acceptable if your end goal is to feed poor people.

Yep. There are usually many means that can reach an end. If the end is good, find a mean that is also good to reach that end. 

 

[msommer]

Machiavelli wrote that because he hated the rulers of Florence, who exiled him. The guy was a huge fanboy for the Roman Republic.

Well, he was writing it to the son of the one who exiled him, to get back on the gravy train

 

[msommer]

If the means are legal and moral, yes. Otherwise no

 

[Kal El]

Well, he was writing it to the son of the one who exiled him, to get back on the gravy train

Also true.

 

[AAABatteries]

It depends on the ends and the means.

But if the means are justified by anything at all, it's by the ends. (What else could justify them?)

https://media.giphy.com/media/OK27wINdQS5YQ/giphy.gif

 

[Joe Bryant]

I voted sometimes.  As for the question itself, it would depend on the ends and means.  

For example, starting a farm would be perfectly acceptable if your end goal is to help feed poor people.  Harvesting another farmer's crop without their permission would not be acceptable if your end goal is to feed poor people.

I understand where you want to go with this, and the example provided re: Moore is completely unacceptable to me as I posted in the other "hypothetical" thread.

I don't have anywhere I want to go. I found the question super interesting and wanted to ask you folks. 

 

[Zow]

A close reading of “The Prince” seems applicable here. 

Followed by the works of Kant.