April 10, 2004
Means and Ends
I ran across an idea recently, I think on Wikipedia, but I don't exactly remember, that I liked. It has to do with categorizing the political spectrum in terms of whether one prioritizes means or ends.
The Machiavellian "ends justify the means" has an inversion, but one that isn't commonly expressed "the means justify the ends". I think that if you put these statements in opposition to each other, you can get a pretty accurate image of the political spectrum.
For example, the "liberals" on this spectrum tend to have an "ends justify the means" mentality, which is to say that they seek just ends over just means. They are more concerned with equal possession of wealth, but not very concerned with ensuring that the means used to arrive at this homogeneity in wealth are just. They are more than content to "rob from the rich to give to the poor", regardless of what the rich might tend to think about this, because they value the justice of equal amounts of wealth over the justice of acquiring that wealth. Likewise, observe that it has been historically been liberals who tend towards revolution, for the justice of their goal is seen as being important enough legitimize any means necessary for attaining it. The typical "bleeding-heart liberal" can be found here, but it is only a short step from "bleeding-heart" to "bloody-heart".
On the contrary, "conservatives" on this spectrum pursue a "means justify the ends" mentality. They are more concerned with ensuring a just method of attaining and maintaining wealth than in who actually has it. They strenuously object to "robbing the rich," because they value the justice of distribution more than equality of ends. In essence, the end is legitimized by the means used to produce that end. Thus, if a properly functioning legal system produces an inequality in society, they are generally more than happy with that, because the end was arrived at justly, even if justice of the end as such is in question.
The drawbacks to both of these positions should be obvious. The extreme "liberal" can be found in totalitarian states, terrorist revolutionaries, and anarchists. They are willing to trample over the people they are nominally attempting to save in order to bring about their cherished ends, more often than not rendering those ends out of reach in the process of pursuing them. Likewise, extreme "conservatives" can be found in hard-nosed capitalists who, provided the forms are observed, care nothing for the poor and disadvantaged. They are willing to accept any end, provided it was reached in a legal manner.
I think this could be a useful tool for evaluating the political philosophy of political candidates.
