Ends and Means

You often hear, "the ends don't justify the means," but I'm not sure that is entirely true. 

Actually, most of the time the ends do justify the means - otherwise, you wouldn't be using those "means" or even putting in the effort to get to a particular "end".  For example, if you need a hole in the backyard (the end) you get a shovel and dig it (the means). 

Really what that expression means is that, "the ends do not justify the use of any and all means to get to them."  In this case, it would be inappropriate to use a bunker-buster bomb to put a hole in your suburban backyard.


So it becomes a question of degree, and that's where it gets tricky.  It is much easier for us to agree when the choices are far apart (use a shovel; use a bomb), but when the choices are much closer together we have a harder time deciding if the means are justified or not.  This is the basis for the slippery slope - a small escalation is ok, but after 50 of them, you have effected a large escalation.

So the question is, at what point do you throw a flag and cry, "no more"?  From a world-stage standpoint, this is a hugely important discussion.  Do you allow Germany to rearm in 1937?  In retrospect, maybe not so great.  Do you allow Saddam to develop WMD?  Again, in retrospect, we should have let that one slide. The problem is that we will always have imperfect information ahead of time, and all choices can go awry. 

On a smaller stage, you are faced with everyday questions like: discipline the kids or let it slide? call out a co-worker or wait it out?  take a public stance on a town issue or work behind the scenes? 

I guess everyone has their own set of tipping points for different issues.  A question: do you consciously choose to cross that line or does it happen without your thinking about it?