We seem to think that we only have two ethical choices. Either
1) the ends justify the means, or
2) we judge people according to their intentions, not according to the results of their actions (thanks, Kant).
Do we really have to be faced with a choice of either accepting whatever means is necessary to reach the goal, or of a Kantian "intentions is what really matters," regardless of outcome? I personally find both distasteful. We should be able to reach good goals by good means. I don't see any reason why that's not possible. We need to stop excusing people with "well, he meant well," while also agreeing that the ends don't justify the means.
Bad means and bad outcomes should be equally condemned, and people should be held responsible for both. We should only judge as good when
3) good intentions result in good outcomes.
It's time we injected a little reality into the question of what constitutes ethical actions.
2 comments:
Unless we put the burden of predicting the future upon ourselves, I don't see how we can be held reponsible for the outcome in any way other than to be diligent in doing the best we can. There are certain variables that are either unknowable or uncontrollable. Here's a simple example: Let's say it takes you 30 minutes to drive to work. On a particular morning, you listen to the traffic report and the weather report before leaving and there are no reasons for a delay. You have an alternate route planned out, just in case there is traffic. Your car has received all scheduled maintenance, and you have plenty of gas and a spare tire. You leave 15 minutes ahead of time, just in case something unexpected happens, and you drive carefully. In other words, you have been as diligent as possible, without being neurotic. However, if there is an accident on both possible routes you could take, and you are held up over an hour, causing you to be late for work, how and why should you be negatively judged for the bad outcome, since you exercised "due diligence?"
This isn't an ethical issue here. We're talking about you wanting to do something good for someone, and what you do results in something bad, and then you saying, "well, I meant well." It becomes worse when there is evidence showing you that what you have done will have a bad result, and you do it anyway, thinking it will be different this time. Most of our ethical actions are not really filled with surprise, like our daily commutes. If I want to help poor people, and what I do harms them -- and there was a way for me to find out if what I do or don't do would help or harm, then how can I not be responsible for the harm I've done, when there is sufficient evidence out there that my good intentions will lead to harm? The goal and the methods have to both be good, or you don't have good action. You have bad action. Not evil -- which is choosing the bad over the good, knowing what the good is -- but bad action.
Post a Comment