In · Medias · Res

People ask
What is the world coming to?
But a better question is
Where has it been?

The world we see coming
is one of our own creation.
It follows the path
We set before ourselves.

If we look back
Upon the footsteps behind
We see the line
Of our choices past.

The world is not to be blamed
If it lacks sound guidance.
But rather,
It is our own responsibility.

How does one avoid either error? In the real world, there is no simple algebraic equation around which one may always build one's choices and action with the assurance of certain outcome. Variables always exist, not merely in the shifting instances of the moment, but likewise in the relative morals and ethics which themselves may shift with the changing of conditions and opportunity. "Means" and "ends" must be placed within this uncertain and mercurial environment, and these likewise do not represent singular fixed points, but a haze of interrelationships of causality and momentary significance and impact. What does all this mean? In short, that presumption and assumption are suited to the hypothetical realm, but have no place in the application of sound judgement, and less still in the assessment of choices and actions past.

Set aside presumptions and set values and examine aspects both in isolation and in relative context, of themselves and as ends and means; make assessments rather than justifications. Do not cling to absolutes of self, of ideals or belief: such are delusions. All things are relative and when one frees oneself to perceive them as such, real values are revealed, the facts of the shifting moment are laid bare, and those brief opportunities for action may be seized with certainty.

If one applies the Three Rays of Enlightenemnt, these aspects will be made clear, and one need never seek justification for one's means and ends, as they will stand by themselves as proof enough.

The consideration thus far addresses these two linear arguments and their perils in the most general terms, leaving the variables of ends and means undefined and abstract. In the practice of these lines of unsound reasoning, this is seldom the case. Both of these syllogisms are employed to represent and enact individual points of view, ethics, morals, values; and further, are enacted within the context of the beliefs and ideals one may hold or share. In is in this context of presumption that these arguments become especially complicated.

As has been established, both arguments represent applications of presumption, of establishing value without consideration of the full aspects. When these presumptions are combined with ego, which tends to lead one to presume one is automatically right or wrong , established beliefs, which tend to be held without contemplation, or ideals, which tend to be espoused with reflection, error is compounded and rendered almost inevitable. The ultimate circular argument: the stance is justified by the belief or ideal; and the belief or ideal is justified by the argument, all of which is girded by the ego, which may not be questioned.

Although this grand delusion of sound judgement represents a topic distinct from the basic concepts of ends and means, and merits consideration in its own right; it likewise may be taken as a grand example of the both basic arguments, with instances to be found throughout the human sphere. And this being so, it reveals the first steps in avoiding the errors that these arguments embody: oversimplification, presumption and the premise of absolute values.

This phrase, perhaps less familiar than the inverse, represents the oft unstated contrary stance. To wit: that no "good" outcome can come from ethically or morally questionable action; and that any outcome that derives from choices or actions which are ethically and morally sound must inevitably be judged "good" regardless of actual result. It is unsurprising that this stance has been taken at times as a specific position of moral opposition to the inverse, "the ends justify the means". There is a certain sound algorithmic logic that the negative or positive value of choices and action will weigh upon the value of the outcome. One cannot deny that this seems more representational of the order of cause and effect, choice and responsibility. However, in practical terms it also represents a gross oversimplification that presumes that no end result can be greater than the sum of the conscious choices and actions that produce it.

One might consider the perils and failures of this stance, regardless of whether it is stated explicitly or implied by one's choices and actions, how it relates to specific cases of moral, ethical, or practical enaction. In this context, the focus is upon the simple linearity and ultimately circular nature of this argument of justification. One can certainly argue, especially in the wake of consideration of the pitfalls of the inverse argument, that the moral or ethical character of choices and actions must inevitably be calculated into the sum of the outcome. As with the peripheral effects mentioned in regard to inverse, the notion of cumulative good or bad, right or wrong at every step must be factored into the assessment of overall outcome. And this argument is undeniably sound, to a point. The peril of "means justify the ends" lies in its similar rigidity, not unlike the inverse argument.

Whereas "ends justify the means" is built upon the unsound premise that the presumed value of an outcome is proof of the ultimate value of an outcome, regardless of intervening factors, "means justify the ends" is built upon the equally unsound presumption. This premise is the presumption of both rigid value of all factors and the purely cumulative nature of ultimate value. Once again, it is the application of precise algebraic logic upon the ambiguities of practical valuation. To restate: unlike in algebra, the real world value of x+y seldom begets a clean and self-contained z, and likewise z seldom represents an unambiguous x+y. Regardless of the value of any choice or action to which one might commit in the course, the value of the desired or achieved singular outcome can still be weighed independently of any of these factors.

This argument becomes circular in the manner in which the means are used to exclusively define the value of the end, and the common practice associated with this argument is identifying and fixing the overriding value of the means without any assessment of the outcome's merits permitted. Although placing emphasis upon the means is a wise and significant part of sound judgement, the exercise of such judgement lies in weighing each choice and action relative to both the anticipated independent value at the beginning and the proven value of the outcome at the end. When one applies the argument "means justify the ends" there is the risk that the presumed value of individual choices and actions may outweigh the value of the outcome arbitrarily. If one believes these means are of a certain character then the outcome cannot possibly be of any other, and no assessment of the final consequences are made, its value presumed. How is this circular reasoning? The ultimate proof of the outcome in this argument lies in the presumption of absolute equity between the value of cause and effect, regardless: good begets good, bad begets bad. That morally or ethically sound choices and action might produce clearly negative result, or that choices and action of the most unsound ethical or moral character might produce positive outcome, are presumed to be impossible regardless of actual outcome. As with the inverse argument, since this basic presumption is made in advance of action or assessment, the beginning and the end, and all points in between, are treated as being of the same value.