Do the ends ever justify the means?

Before I began writing this post, I googled "the ends justify the means" and got 204,000 results. The volume of philosophical discourse that's gone into analyzing the implications of the phrase is staggering.

Frankly, I think it's all a bunch of pseudo-academic crap. It's never acceptable to breach moral, ethical, or legal boundaries to achieve some perceived greater good. But I didn't always think that way.

When I was young and full of myself, among other things, I believed the answer was yes, that the ends can, under certain circumstances, justify the means. At the time, my youthful pursuits included such virtuous goals as completing chip designs on budget and on schedule, achieving personal happiness, and some not-so-virtuous quests we won't discuss here.

I know I shouldn't be so hard on myself, but I was indeed full of it back then. The ends never justify the means. Rather, the concept is nothing but an excuse for people to get what they want. And while many are young and stupid, some are narcissists and sociopaths who behave reprehensibly in the name of personal issues that can never be resolved.

Consider the past decade of tech industry scandal and fraud: Trillions of dollars of investment capital down the tubes in the dot-com bust; rampant conflict of interest between Wall Street's top investment bankers and telecom research analysts; stock-option backdating scandals; and a mountain of accounting and trading fraud.

Just ask convicted executives from Adelphia, Cendant, Comverse, Computer Associates, Dynegy, Enron, Enterasys, Homestore, Imclone, Impath, Monster, Network Associates, Prudential Securities, Qwest, Refco, Tyco, and WorldCom, what made them think they could get away with it?

Their answers may be disguised a hundred different ways, but they will always boil down to a dillusional belief that what they did was somehow justified. For example, at his sentencing in 2005, John Rigas of Adelphia said, "In my heart and in my conscience, I'll go to my grave really and truly believing that I did nothing but try to improve the conditions of my employees."

I guess the part about his employees and shareholders losing their jobs and retirement savings because of his actions must have slipped John's mind.

So, when you see an executive stretch ethical, moral, or legal boundaries for what he or she perceives to be the greater good, be wary. Better still, run the other way.

[pea_dids]

"Google returns 200k hits when searched for ....."

"Webster's defines ethics as ......"

Dude, I realize this is a blog, but you sound like a junior high debate team member. I hope they're not paying you for this steaming weekly pile of "industry insight"

ps, nice job calling most search engine results pseudo-academic crap and then two paragraphs later tossing out terms like narcissistic and sociopath as an explanation for unethical behavior. I'm sure your techblogger analysis is anything but p-a crap like everyone else, and is instead firmly rooted in DSM-IV classifications and current mental health research. How many results would link to Train Wreck if I searched for "hypocritical snake-oil salesman?"

[RalphWaldoELP]

The analysis is a little off kilter but the basic point is a good one -- hey criminals (and lesser wrongdoers), don't kid yourself or us with complex rationalizations. You did bad stuff and all the wordy hokum in the world can't change that.

But...the ends can surely justify the means in other contexts, if "ends" are good goals in the first place and "means" are unpleasant things needed to get there. (Have you ever been to the dentist?)

What Steve's point really is is that inherently bad ends can't be justified, full stop, and wrapping a bunch of "nuance" around the set of excuses offered does nothing to change that.

These pillager guys are never interested in anything but their own glory, and (here comes pseudo-academic crap) we have known since the Greeks that that, unbound by some kind of moral code, is a bad idea, whether it happens in the school yard or the board room.

[JazGalaxy]

I think this is exactly what's wrong with our government right now.

Rarely are people genuinely "evil" but more often than not deluded and flawed. Much like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, there are people who are so caught up in their own ego that they believe that they are a cut above the masses and capable of gaming the regular people in society who are not as great as they.

I fully believe that's what George Bush and his cronies in office are guilty of. I don't think they want to destroy America one bit, but I think that they collectively believe that they are heroes and that they need to break a few eggs to bake a beautiful american cake.

And you know what, if they were right, it would be a pretty airtight philosophy. The problem is that few people are as talented as they think they are.

Just like any movie, people who live by this philosophy inevitably put their head in their hands during their hour of darkness and say "what have I done?" when they come to the realization that they are not who their ego thinks they are.