DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

The teacher walked into the class and found that someone had left a very rude and disturbing note on her desk. Investigating it was futile since no one seemed to know how the note got there or who wrote it. Annoyed, the teacher gave the entire class detention. A student in the front row objected. "It is unfair that one person did something wrong and all of us have to pay for it."

Then the teacher said these words:

"Would it be fair if you came to a school that is so disruptive that the teachers cannot teach? My first concern is to keep order in my class, and then we can have the luxury of speaking about fair and unfair. You think that what I do is unfair? Let me tell you something about law. If you go back as far as you can in history, laws were always made for two reasons, but the main reason is to keep order. Only secondly is it to afford some level of justice. If ever there was a time when these two things were at odds with each other, the function of keeping order would prevail over justice. You may not agree. You may not like it, but such is the world we all live in. Deal with it."

Many of the students harboured resentment for the teacher as she never seemed to respect their rights as individuals.

Was the teacher correct in what she said?

Which is more urgent in the world today, order or justice?

Can there be justice without order? Can there be order without justice?

If the method of keeping order encourages resentment, is the method self-defeating?

Would resentment eventually spawn disruptive behaviour?

If you were the teacher, how would you handle the situation?

Gita grew up in a very poor family and swore that she would not let her children suffer as she did as a child. As a young woman she had two suitors, one rich and the other whom she loved more, poor. Her rich friend sincerely loved her, and they got along well together but she really connected to her poor suitor. She felt much more comfortable with him than anyone else. Of course, the time came to make the choice of which relationship she would allow to advance further. Although her heart was with the poor friend, she broke off that relationship in favour of her rich friend.

She made her rich boyfriend feel that she really loved him and no one else, and so he thought that she would be completely happy as his wife. He asked her to be his wife and she said, "yes." In the end Gita had what she always wanted, —financial stability. Her husband, however, always wanted someone to love him for himself and not for what he might or might not have. As time passed, in so many little ways he felt trapped in a marriage without passion, without meaning. He felt lost.

How important is it to be honest about our reasons for doing things?

Is it morally right to use people as a means to an end?

Even if eventually Gita and her husband developed an honest loving relationship, does it mean that Gita did the right thing in deceiving her husband in the first place?

If the outcome of an action is good, does it mean that the action itself was right?

Victoria, the daughter of a prominent businessman, was in love with Vijai. She was elated when he proposed marriage. Her father, however, never trusted Vijai's motives and thought that he was only after his daughter's inheritance, but he knew that there was nothing he could do or say to convince Victoria of this. Secretly he visited Vijai and offered him a substantial amount of money to break off his relationship with Victoria. It was no surprise to the father that Vijai accepted immediately. Victoria never saw her love again.

Was the father wrong to bribe Vijai?

Was the outcome of the father's intervention good or bad?

Would the father be wrong not to do everything in his power to stop his daughter from being exploited and hurt?

What other course of action could the father have taken?

It was only when Percy reached home and looked again in his wallet that he realised he was overpaid an extra $100.00 by the store clerk. Initially he tried to phone the store about it but could not get through. Then he remembered an incident last year when the owner of the store sold him a broken item and refused to refund him the two hundred dollars he spent. "Well," Percy thought, "Perhaps it is only right that I keep this $100.00. He still owes me another."

Was Percy right to keep the $100.00?

Do you think that the store clerk would be held liable for the loss? Should Percy be concerned about the store clerk?

Activity: Those who believe that the end does justify the means usually concentrate on one desirable end. However, even the most insignificant action usually has multiple "ends" or consequences. Perhaps the most important end of adopting this principle of "Expedience" is the creation of new precedence (rule) and the demise of various moral principles. Study the stories in this chapter and identify the principles which were sacrificed for expedience.