|
This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone who handles matters like yours.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
|
|
This being “the means justifies the ends.”
Terrifically salutatory idea in law enforcement.
Kantian ethics go!
Almost makes you wonder if one’s actions might be something more than simply the means to an end.
Aldous Huxley said that, as a matter of definition, the ends cannot justify the means. Neither justifies the other. Because your means and your ends are both defined by your own values. It’s that same set of values that justifies both, and also defines the ends you think worth pursuing, and defines the set of means you’re willing to consider.
Huxley also said that the values underlying our ends are pretty much universal norms.
That last bit just goes to show that even the smartest guy in the room doesn’t always know when to shut up. Because now he’s played right into the strict utilitarian’s argument. If our ends are justified by universal values, then so are the means we employ. Everyone agrees that reducing the amount of, say, terror attacks is a highly desirable end. Therefore, even torture is justifiable if it accomplishes that goal.
Of course, the problem with this argument is that there isn’t only one value at play. We may have another moral norm that, say, torture is not good. In fact, it’s inherently evil. Do these competing values cancel each other out? Does one always outweigh the other? Or might each outweigh the other, depending on the circumstances?
Here’s an oversimplified illustration: Some might think a soldier on the scene would be justified in pointing a gun at a terrorist’s head, or even breaking his jaw, to get him to show where a powerful bomb is hidden. But as a society we might also deem torture so contrary to our sense of who we are, so evil, that we cannot permit our institutions to engage in it. In such a case, the same values could elicit a sigh and turning a blind eye to the soldier’s act as a necessity of war, yet evoke howls of outrage at the mere suggestion that official torture is something we as a people would ever countenance. Public safety might excuse torture to prevent the immediate loss of life, but no evidence could ever be worth a tortured confession, even if it were truthful. In other words, we wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice certain human rights in the service of greater happiness, because doing so would actually make things worse, not better.
Such considerations might be similar to those at play on these pages. Where did English law and culture draw the line?
Are there other “means to an end” that are so inherently evil that they could never be considered no matter the desirability of the end? Slavery comes to mind. Does the fact that most human cultures thought slavery was fine and normal well into the 19th century make our present-day value any less inherent?