Means and Ends
In trying to see the difference in approaches to the world, DocBrain thinks he may have discovered a key difference among people. It has to do with means and ends and which one is the most important.
Means are more important than ends. "The means justify the ends." There are core beliefs as to what constitutes "good" or "moral" or "ethical" behavior. As long as you do good, the ends will take care of themselves. If the ends do not turn out as you anticipated that they would, then it really is not your fault, as you have done the right thing. Perhaps not enough "good" was done. Perhaps some who did "bad" foiled the plans. Lets call these people "idealists" since the ideals of behavior trump all else.
Ends are more important than means. "The ends justify the means." You know how you want things to end up. You do whatever it takes to get there, even if it involves deviating from what is considered "good" or "moral" or "ethical". Lets call these people "realists" as the real world outcome is all they care about.
The problem with idealism is that living the ideal life does not guarantee that the ends will be what you want them to be. Part of the reason is that idealists must live with realists. The other problem is that some ideals may be flawed or not poorly understood. The classical example is that one should never lie, but what if you are harboring an innocent fugitive in your basement. Do you lie to authorities and save an innocent life? Usually, this leads to a clarification of "Don't Lie" to something more nuanced. So, idealists wind up getting nuanced and bullied.
The problem with realists is that they can play fast and loose with the social glue that holds us together. You need a pain medication? You are short on money but have a gun? Why not just take it at gunpoint from the druggist? Assuming you cannot be identified, problem solved. Realists must exist with idealists, so they must at least attempt to solve problems through virtuous behavior. The realists wind up getting tsk tsked and policed.
When idealists get too much power, they push for virtuous solutions that fail because they are not nuanced enough (unintended consequences) or are corrupted (graft, political favors).
When realists get too much power, they may harm good people in their attempts to achieve the desired end.
In the end, we are left with the dilemma: do what is virtuous or achieve a desired end. Turning the "or" into an "and" is quite difficult.
The health care debate can be framed in this way. Ideally, everyone gets free health care. If we move ahead, there will be unintended consequences and corruption and we will never get there as we try to make sure that every possible good is maintained or enhanced. On the other hand, if we begin at the end "everyone has affordable, high quality health care" and get there by any means necessary, we would certainly choose a different path than the one currently being discussed. Nothing would be off the table.
Means are more important than ends. "The means justify the ends." There are core beliefs as to what constitutes "good" or "moral" or "ethical" behavior. As long as you do good, the ends will take care of themselves. If the ends do not turn out as you anticipated that they would, then it really is not your fault, as you have done the right thing. Perhaps not enough "good" was done. Perhaps some who did "bad" foiled the plans. Lets call these people "idealists" since the ideals of behavior trump all else.
Ends are more important than means. "The ends justify the means." You know how you want things to end up. You do whatever it takes to get there, even if it involves deviating from what is considered "good" or "moral" or "ethical". Lets call these people "realists" as the real world outcome is all they care about.
The problem with idealism is that living the ideal life does not guarantee that the ends will be what you want them to be. Part of the reason is that idealists must live with realists. The other problem is that some ideals may be flawed or not poorly understood. The classical example is that one should never lie, but what if you are harboring an innocent fugitive in your basement. Do you lie to authorities and save an innocent life? Usually, this leads to a clarification of "Don't Lie" to something more nuanced. So, idealists wind up getting nuanced and bullied.
The problem with realists is that they can play fast and loose with the social glue that holds us together. You need a pain medication? You are short on money but have a gun? Why not just take it at gunpoint from the druggist? Assuming you cannot be identified, problem solved. Realists must exist with idealists, so they must at least attempt to solve problems through virtuous behavior. The realists wind up getting tsk tsked and policed.
When idealists get too much power, they push for virtuous solutions that fail because they are not nuanced enough (unintended consequences) or are corrupted (graft, political favors).
When realists get too much power, they may harm good people in their attempts to achieve the desired end.
In the end, we are left with the dilemma: do what is virtuous or achieve a desired end. Turning the "or" into an "and" is quite difficult.
The health care debate can be framed in this way. Ideally, everyone gets free health care. If we move ahead, there will be unintended consequences and corruption and we will never get there as we try to make sure that every possible good is maintained or enhanced. On the other hand, if we begin at the end "everyone has affordable, high quality health care" and get there by any means necessary, we would certainly choose a different path than the one currently being discussed. Nothing would be off the table.
posted by DocBrain at
2:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home