Controversy is the name of the game as our political leaders battle it out on social media and in newspaper headlines to try and convince the people who is in the right and who is in the wrong regarding the recent “attack” on the Senate and the escape of Senator Bato dela Rosa from the clutches of the ICC. All this is an offshoot of the controversial drug war of the Duterte administration.
Ethics begs the question of whether the “ends justify the means,” or shouldn’t the “means justify the ends” in all instances? Or simply put, should you do whatever it takes to accomplish your goal, regardless of whether it’s morally right or wrong? Do we kill all drug offenders to ensure a safe community? Or do we instead rehabilitate drug offenders?
For this week, I give way to a Gen-Zer, a 17-year-old student of an exclusive all-girls school in Alabang who shares her views on the ethical perspective of this issue.
The ends of ethics: Does it ever justify the means?
By Adreanne Serrano
In Avengers: Infinity War, the villain Thanos states that he must wipe out half of all life in the universe to end wars, food shortages, overpopulation, and other contemporary issues for the greater good. While this is a fictional scenario, it questions our own morality and how we approach our goals to achieve them. This mentality can be summed up in ethics’ most popular dilemma: Do the ends justify the means? Or is it vice versa?
Exploring this thought experiment involves taking a closer look at various types of philosophy and their applications in our decision-making.
“The ends justify the means” can be simplified to mean that the end or the goal morally outweighs the means, that any method is acceptable so long as the goal is achieved.
The argument here is that more people will benefit in the end with this decision, even if it costs others their lives. Politically, this justifies a leader’s need for absolute power and authority in the present to secure the future and well-being of the greater number of people by pushing boundaries.
One prime example of this is dictatorships. The goal of the martial law declaration of Marcos Sr. was to ensure a state that would be dependent on its leader, regardless of how it stripped citizens of their standard trial procedures, freedom of the press, and unrestricted movement.
This ethical mindset becomes a political strategy that gets the end done quickly with little consideration for whatever unconstitutional consequences it may have. Think of the current situation in the Senate. If the goal is to delay the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, then a coup and a sudden change in leadership suddenly seems like fair play.
These actions tread on the mindset of prioritizing the end goal, even if it means the termination of individual lives. In this way, it promotes moral ambiguity by blurring the distinction between right and wrong when pursuing what you want. All that matters is the goal itself, one’s capacity to chase that power, and what they will do to maintain that power.
Conversely, we have “the means justify the ends.” This is defined by philosopher Kant as “a person is an end in itself, and should not be used as a means to an end.” Every person has an intrinsic value rooted in their autonomy to act virtuously before pursuing a goal.
Therefore, if we have the power to choose our goals, we can also choose to value others in our means rather than simply using them as sacrificial pawns for the “greater good.” It emphasizes that there is always another way to achieve our goals that respects human dignity as something to be cherished and upheld, beyond self-interest or future happiness.
It is a basic human right that an accused defendant must be tried reasonably with evidence to prove his innocence before imposing a punishment on him.
This situation values the human person by not presuming him guilty and chooses the morally sound means of an evidence-based trial rather than harming the defendant to promote justice. Through this philosophy, rather than assuming the perspective of someone with authority over others, we are challenged to view others as equals and achieve our goals through collaboration, not coercion.
Across political, social, and intellectual landscapes, ethics continues to expand our knowledge of our individual principles and their behavioral standings. The question “Do the ends justify the means?” allows us to think critically about current philosophical stances and their applications in real-world scenarios. Prioritizing the ends over the means emphasizes personal power through morally ambiguous means, whereas justifying the means over the ends upholds human autonomy and dignity as considerations for the morality of one’s actions and their contemporary impacts.
Practicality in decision-making should also be considered by accounting for the situational context and circumstances in determining the most virtuous actions toward a goal.
Especially for our leaders, we must continue to question the motivation behind their actions and call for public servants to use their authority to improve, not impede, the rights of citizens.
The ability to create, pursue and act on any dilemma lies with the individual. From small choices to life-or-death scenarios, it is within our own jurisdiction to guide ourselves and our moral principles toward the best possible outcome. By uncovering the ends of ethics, it means for us to remain open-minded, introspective, and reflective to the possibilities around us.
Until next week… OBF!