Do End Results Justify the Means?
Posted by JaxGary 9 years, 3 months ago to Government
There are those among us who prefer a smaller, less obtrusive government and others who prefer an all-powerful government that is capable of meeting their every need. Upon reading this first sentence, you automatically identified on which side of this fence you stand.
I would like to present a different approach to considering which side has greener pastures. Consider not just the ends but also the means of achieving those ends.
A smaller government is an end whose means involve transferring power away from the federal government and back to the states or even to the individual. That seems like a lofty mean that harms no one (except federal workers who will necessarily become unemployed) and benefits many while being completely moral and just. The actions on the part of citizens are all voluntary to either freely accept or reject their new-found liberty and freedom of choice.
The other alternative, a more pervasive federal government requires coercion (the threat of force with badges and guns) on the part of government to initially collect the taxes that are necessary to fund the program expansions. Coercion is far from voluntary; but many people will simply say that is just the price we have to pay for more government-provided security or comfort. Others, the truly extreme supporters of big government, will say whatever the costs are, the ends justify the means.
Now there is an interesting concept of human behavior and rationalization. How many times do we hear that phrase, the ends justify the means? How many times is it morally correct, or even true from a societal viewpoint?
More importantly, is it the function of government among men to provide for each man what he could or should be able to provide for himself? I submit the only justifiable purpose for government is to protect and defend the citizens and their property. In doing those things the government need not enact any means that extort it citizens, or compel the sacrifice of personal property that is hard-earned and deserved so that it may re-apportioned to others who are less inclined to earn their own way. I will grant that government does need funding to provide those “essential” programs like national defense and a court system; so some form of taxation or usage fees would be appropriate. What are inappropriate are government expenditures exceeding government revenues on a regular and continuing basis. One interesting thing about debt is the old axiom that states “you can pay me now or pay me later, with interest”; that interest payment of course increases the longer the debt or other type of obligation exists. We are approaching a point at which the debt service on or national debt will become one of the largest (and least justifiable) of all federal expenditures.
I would like to present a different approach to considering which side has greener pastures. Consider not just the ends but also the means of achieving those ends.
A smaller government is an end whose means involve transferring power away from the federal government and back to the states or even to the individual. That seems like a lofty mean that harms no one (except federal workers who will necessarily become unemployed) and benefits many while being completely moral and just. The actions on the part of citizens are all voluntary to either freely accept or reject their new-found liberty and freedom of choice.
The other alternative, a more pervasive federal government requires coercion (the threat of force with badges and guns) on the part of government to initially collect the taxes that are necessary to fund the program expansions. Coercion is far from voluntary; but many people will simply say that is just the price we have to pay for more government-provided security or comfort. Others, the truly extreme supporters of big government, will say whatever the costs are, the ends justify the means.
Now there is an interesting concept of human behavior and rationalization. How many times do we hear that phrase, the ends justify the means? How many times is it morally correct, or even true from a societal viewpoint?
More importantly, is it the function of government among men to provide for each man what he could or should be able to provide for himself? I submit the only justifiable purpose for government is to protect and defend the citizens and their property. In doing those things the government need not enact any means that extort it citizens, or compel the sacrifice of personal property that is hard-earned and deserved so that it may re-apportioned to others who are less inclined to earn their own way. I will grant that government does need funding to provide those “essential” programs like national defense and a court system; so some form of taxation or usage fees would be appropriate. What are inappropriate are government expenditures exceeding government revenues on a regular and continuing basis. One interesting thing about debt is the old axiom that states “you can pay me now or pay me later, with interest”; that interest payment of course increases the longer the debt or other type of obligation exists. We are approaching a point at which the debt service on or national debt will become one of the largest (and least justifiable) of all federal expenditures.
This philosophy has its roots in the 5th century BCE to a Chinese philosopher Mozi. The names have changed over the last twenty-five centuries, but the concept has always been with us!
Utilitarianism is part of the broad spectrum of consequentialist ethics. In the late 1800s, the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill gave us the concept of providing "the greatest good for the greatest number" as a form of utilitarianism. For the most part I admire Mill and his work, especially in economic theory, but this notion of the greatest good has led to some pretty strange government intervention to achieve "lofty goals" like eliminating poverty or as President Obama so often says, "it's the right thing to do". I think all of the social programs enacted by the US and state governments are based on Mill's notion. Let me reaffirm my stance: the ends NEVER justify the means, especially from an ethical perspective. All 49 of my students agreed with me tonight.