'Means' and 'Ends': Whither Goest America?

Why is compromise in Washington no longer possible? Consider this: There are at play in America two diametrically opposed systems of morality.

The Catholic Church traditionally has taught that the morality of human acts depends on the "goodness" of (a) the object chosen, (b) the intention and (c) the circumstances. It holds that neither the "goodness" of the object nor the intention (for example, helping one's neighbor) justifies using means that are evil, such as lying, demonizing your neighbor or stealing. The church teaches that "the end does not justify the means," and that "one may not do evil so that good may result from it."

The opposing system, which is perhaps best described by Saul Alinsky, teaches that if the "end" is good, the morality of the "means" chosen to achieve that end is not a matter worthy of consideration. All that matters is that the means chosen will work.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky devotes his second chapter to a discussion of means and ends. He writes:

"The second rule of the ethics of 'means and ends' is that the judgment of the ethics of 'means' is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. If you actively opposed the Nazi occupation and joined the underground Resistance, then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis.Those who opposed the Nazi conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists, courageous beyond expectation and willing to sacrifice their lives to their moral convictions. To the occupation authorities, however, these people were lawless terrorists, murderers, saboteurs, assassins, who believed that the end justified the means, and were utterly unethical according to the mystical rules of war. Any foreign occupation would so ethically judge its opposition. However, in such conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory. It is life or death."

Alinsky would no doubt see universal health care as a matter of "life and death." As such, he would place the "have nots" in the shoes of the Resistance, fighting the Nazi occupation, and those who oppose universal health care, in the shoes of the Nazi occupiers. For that reason, an Alinsky-ite would ask only what means he would work? Fair and truthful political argument? Lying? Demonizing your opponents? Destroying his reputation? Calling him a racist? Bribing reluctant supporters? Punishing political opponents?

Alinsky has written, "Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The 'end' is what you want, and the 'means' is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. ... he who fears corruption fears life."

Once the Alinsky-ite decides that the end is achievable, and worth the cost, his only other question is whether the means chosen will work. Therefore if lies will work, lying is a permissible means. If destroying your opponents reputation will work, that is permissible. And, at the extreme, if assassinating your opponent works, do it! And if by controlling the press you can stifle all outcry, that too is an acceptable means.

For the Alinsky-ite, the individual cannot stand the way of the good of the masses: "The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's 'conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action;' in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of 'personal salvation'; he doesn't care enough for people to be 'corrupted' for them."

The church teaches otherwise: "Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him. Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature.These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects."

The great problem, of course, with Alinsky's view of ends and means is that if you and your friends can assassinate me (politically or actually) to achieve political or economic mass good, then why can't I and my friends employ like means against you to achieve our notions of mass good? What sort of society do you have when everybody and every political faction lies, bribes and blackmails in support of what they believe to be "social justice?"

Alinsky's equating the struggle between the "have-nots" and the "haves" to war and Nazi occupation turns civilian life into war. But war is the absence of morality and the rule of law. "War is Hell." Is that what we want for ourselves and our children?

So, why is compromise becoming impossible in Washington? How do you compromise when the other side lies about you and the issues? Who vilifies and demonizes you? Who calls you a racist?

Alinsky's notion that the individual and his conscience must be sacrificed for the mass good scares the hell out of me. His paradise looks too much like a new and unimproved version of Stalin's USSR, or Hitler's Germany. If the government -- on behalf of the masses -- determines that the ends are achievable and worth the cost, what prevents the despoilment, destruction or enslavement of the minority "haves?"


John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.


Posted Online: Dec. 05, 2013, 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Does it Matter that a Congressman Is a Liar?

Congressman Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., has resigned.

So, what had he done that required him to do so? Sent inappropriate photos of himself to women? Demonstrated deplorable judgment? Lied?

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., himself censured for ethics violations by the House a year ago, purports to be nonplussed at all the fuss. He sees Mr. Weiner's conduct only as something of a sexual nature. Mr. Rangel describes himself as someone who "knows immoral sex when I hear it." Mr. Rangel also sees the bright side of things: "(Mr. Weiner) wasn't going with prostitutes; he wasn't going out with little boys; he wasn't going into men's' rooms." Rangel would have us believe that he doesn't "know why they're selecting Anthony;" and adds "he can be an effective congressman, if the press just gets ... his back." Rangel ostensibly appears to be blissfully unconcerned that Mr. Weiner might have demonstrated deplorable judgment, or that he has now confessed to being a willful liar.

So, is it important for a member of Congress to always act with integrity and good judgment? Fifty-two percent of the people polled in Weiner's district apparently don't think so.

Would they reach the same conclusion if Mr. Weiner were a judge?

Assume "Judge Weiner" enjoyed the best of health, was a brilliant, tireless worker and possessed a saintly judicial temperament. Would they vote for him, if they knew he was a persistent liar with deplorable judgment?

Years ago, a prominent local attorney told me that "a man has no business being a judge if he lacks integrity." I unreservedly agree. And I would also add that the bench is no place for a man with puerile judgment.

Judges with integrity decide cases on their merits. They don't take bribes. They recuse themselves if they feel they can't be fair to both sides. They don't listen to ex parte communications. They don't accept "gifts" from attorneys or litigants, and they don't make rulings calculated to advance their judicial careers. Judges with good judgment don't do things, on or off the bench, that they know will cause embarrassment to themselves, their families or to the judicial system.

Integrity is the public's guarantee that the judge will conscientiously apply the law, and exercise his best judgment to determine the facts so as to make the legally correct ruling.

But what about Congressmen? A judge without integrity harms or improperly benefits only the litigants who appear in his court. A congressman by voting for the passage of a law can harm -- or benefit -- millions.

On June 6, 2011, Weiner faced the press and admitted, "I lied."

Weiner said he panicked when Andrew Breitbart revealed a picture that Weiner had put on the Internet, so he made up a story about his account being hacked.

Only when the noose tightened, did Mr. Weiner admit, , "I have made terrible mistakes. ... I have not been honest. The picture was of me and I sent it... I lied because I was embarrassed."

Supporters argued that his sexual proclivities are private matters (even though the congressman published them on the Internet?). They've told us he's "smart," and suggest his brilliance makes him indispensable.

I'm sorry. I don't buy it. Either a man has integrity, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground. Or should we be satisfied with congressmen who lie only 50 percent of the time, or just when it is to his advantage to do so?

Equally bad, is Mr. Weiner's appalling lack of judgment. What he is really saying is that he used terrible judgment by making salacious suggestions online, and in putting pictures of himself on the Internet. Then when it looked like he would be embarrassed by what he did, he used more bad judgment and decided to lie to see if he could get away with it. Then he used even more bad judgment by lying to the press at a press conference. Then he used even more bad judgment by lying from his congressional office. And now he has been forced to admit that by his lies and bad judgment, he brought himself and his office of public trust into disrepute.

Before resigning, Mr. Weiner asked forgiveness. Implicit in that, is that was that he expected us to forget that he is a brazen liar, and a man of reprehensible judgment. But why should we? We had conclusive evidence that he would repeatedly lie to save his skin. We were asked to believe that in other matters he would act with integrity in the future. But why should be believe that a congressman who has demonstrated me-first ethics will put the public welfare first in all matter?

The real question is can the republic survive if we entrust it to politicians who lie and attempt to cover their lies whenever it is to their advantage to do so?


Posted Online: June 28, 2011, 5:00 a. m. - Quad-Cities Online.com

By John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea