Process vs. Results

The question I am going to try to answer here is: Do the ends justify the means? The short answer is yes and no. It's complicated. As that's not a very satisfactory answer, I guess I'll have to dig deeper.

What I've come to understand as I've gotten older is that it's not as important what you think about certain issues as compared to how you've come to your conclusion and how you think in general. Being "right" is not as important as using the "right" processes to arrive at that conclusion. Doing the "right" thing is not as important as doing it the "right" way. I'm using quotes here because, as I've discussed before, the concepts of right and wrong are largely subjective (for convenience, I'll stop using them now). When you disagree with someone, it is important to realize that they are probably just as sure that they are right as you are. Or, if you're a proper skeptic like me, they are probably more sure.

But what are the right processes? I believe they are the ones most likely to achieve your desired result. This would seem to suggest that the ends justify the means, but that is only true in a vacuum. I think a problem many people have with their moral thinking is that of short-sightedness. A particular process may have a better chance of success in the short-term, but it's ripple effects may have negative consequences in the future. The sum result of our actions is an integral through time. Sometimes, we are tempted to completely solve the immediate problem in front of us, even if doing so may make similar problems more difficult to solve in the future. Similarly, we ignore the half-solution, even if doing so may make similar problems easier to solve in the future.

For example, suppose the problem you are trying to solve is poverty and economic inequality. Socialism would seem to be the solution. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Boom, problem solved. Unfortunately, in the long run, this is a failing strategy because it turns out that people who do more, want more. Few people want to work harder if they're not going to get more for it. So everyone ends up living in poverty, eventually. Capitalism, on the other hand, creates wealth, albeit with an incredibly uneven distribution. It would appear the correct solution is a hybrid system. It is not a coincidence that the countries that are currently the most prosperous, including the US and China (on opposite ends of the spectrum), use such a system. This system does not completely solve the problems of poverty and inequality, but we have not yet found one that does.

Another problem arises when we concentrate on results as opposed to process. Some people tend to label those who disagree with them on moral issues important to them as "wrong" or "bad" or "evil". I've seen a lot of this in the current election cycle. From both sides. It doesn't help that the problem is exacerbated by social media, and the internet in general. A tiny vocal minority can appear to be much larger than it is, so it is important to understand that the following only applies to that small group of people. This sort of rhetoric is often incredibly harmful in achieving their goals, especially when that goal is to change someone's mind. A meaningful dialogue cannot be opened if the other party is vilified first. It also generally results in a lot of hypocrisy.

I do not understand how someone can call themselves an American, a country whose core tenets are liberty and equality, and spread hate. I do not understand how someone who claims to fight for the equality of all people can turn around and stereotype an entire group of people as racist and sexist. In addition to being hypocritical, these things are counterproductive.

I hate to sound like a damn hippie, but the keys are love, respect, and empathy. No matter how vile I find another person's views, I need to trust that they are doing what they think is right, and that they are a good person. I need to remain open-minded. I cannot be so sure of myself that I ignore someone else's pain. I cannot be so sure of myself that I ignore and dismiss what they have to say. I would encourage you to do the same.

I've more or less said all these things before, but these are points I'm going to harp on because, if we are actually interested in solving the problems we face, we need to use the means that are most likely to achieve these ends. If anything, it serves as confirmation that we are on the right track because our means and our ends are one.

If we want a world that is more respectful and empathetic, we need to be more respectful and empathetic ourselves. Giving voice to anger and frustration may make us feel better in the short-term, but it will make the world more angry and frustrated in the future. No one likes being yelled at. If we are going to meaningfully engage with those who disagree with us, we need to interact with them on a human level. I believe that we cannot view love and respect as things to be earned or deserved - they must be freely given. It is not a question of right or wrong, responsibility or blame. It is a question of accomplishing our goals.