The Wrong Means to a Right End
I suspect that at some point, we all have faced a daunting task that we sought to accomplish in the most expeditious manner. After all, who doesn’t value their time and efforts and want to minimize both? But there can be a wrong way of accomplishing even a noble goal. Most of us have been guilty of taking a shortcut on a project, only to end up spending twice as long as we would have if we had just done things the right way in the first place.
Less commonly, some of us resort to means that might accomplish a task more efficiently, but at the expense of others. An example came to mind just the other day: An independent journalist wanted to expose a major pharmaceutical company’s corrupt practices that potentially endanger a large number of people. While I support this goal, I don’t agree with the way he went about it. According to the narrative, the journalist staged a blind date with an executive from the pharmaceutical company and secretly recorded their conversation. The journalist asked many probing questions and the pharma executive, who had imbibed a few alcoholic beverages, spilled his guts about the company’s practices. When he was later confronted by a full camera crew he understandably freaked out.
To be clear—I’m not defending the executive’s stance or his employer’s practices. But I also don’t support the way in which the journalist went about obtaining the information. To my surprise, the footage of this encounter is being widely disseminated and commented on, even by individuals I previously respected. So far, no one has expressed public disapproval of the journalist’s tactics. Can no one else see that using underhanded methods to uncover underhanded practices is at best hypocritical? Or that it harms the cause in general, and to some degree, the reputation of others associated with it, including those who act with integrity?
Sometimes we employ the wrong measures because they have become socially accepted, or even expected. Can you think of a politician running for office in recent history who didn’t smear his/her opponent, directly or indirectly? Unfortunately, this despicable practice has become widely accepted. As I see it, any candidate who engages in this only undermines his/her own integrity, and yes, this makes voting very challenging!
Sadly, using dishonorable means to achieve a desired goal has also become something of a norm in interpersonal relationships, and is often portrayed as acceptable in popular films and television shows. How many of us can honestly say that we’ve never used an unreasonable tactic to elicit an action or response in our partners? There are countless examples, but perhaps the worst is when we threaten the viability of the relationship itself in order to get our way.
As a general rule, if meeting our goal in any way infringes upon the rights of others, it is wrong. If we are insincere, duplicitous, or dishonest, or if we use coercion of any sort, it is wrong. I know there are readers who believe that, in some cases, the ends justify the means. But if you think about it, this is both arrogant and dangerous because it assumes that we know better than the societal value system that we all are supposed to live by—it presumes that our goal takes precedence over democracy, justice, and due process. If we imagine being at the receiving end of those very actions and we are not happy about it, it is wrong. We should strive to follow Jesus’ greatest commandment: to love one another—including our enemies—as he loved us, with a divine love that fully encompasses mercy and fairness. In place of the Old Testament advice to take “an eye for an eye,” he taught his apostles to return good for evil, to overcome evil with good. Remember: Justice will ultimately prevail, but not if unjust means are utilized in its pursuit.