Do The Ends Justify The Means? Can Evil Be Used For Good?

When I was a little girl, I heard over and over through television, teachers, family, and peers that the end does not justify the means. This phrase was meant to say that doing evil, even for the sake of an intended good, is not justified.  

As I grew older, I learned about Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Principle of Double Effect, which would help in distinguishing which acts are moral in the case that an action has both good and bad effects. Simply put, the Principle of Double Effect means that a decision can have good and bad effects without being immoral. For an act to fall under this principle the act must be morally indifferent, the resulting good of the act must not come from an evil act, and evil cannot be the intended result. For example, suppose a pregnant mother of several children has cancer. Removing the cancer may end the life of her unborn child, but not removing the cancer would cause the mother’s death. This situation would fall under the Principle of Double Effect because the act of removing cancer is not evil, and while the death of the unborn child may be a result of removing the cancer, it is not the intention. The intention is to remove the cancer so that the mother can continue to care for her other children, which is good.

 Now that I am grown, it seems that the mantra of the ends not justifying the means even when applied to Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Principle of Double Effect, is no longer accepted as true or good by the general society. Every day I read or hear someone talking about how such and such an evil is justified because that harm is meant to lead to a greater good. And while the motive for an evil act may have the intention of leading to a good, history shows that evil actions intended for a good outcome, rarely results in justice.

One of my favorite historical examples of evil being used with an intended outcome for justice is the French Revolution . I like this example because it parallels many of today’s issues and current events. Shortly before the French Revolution began, the Catholic Church in France was the official religion of the country and all those who were not practicing Catholics were not able to enjoy equal citizenship under the law. When the Revolution began, the strategy of the revolutionaries was to strip the Catholic Church of all its property and political power. The idea was that by destroying Catholic property and political power, the Catholic Church would lose its influence on the state and equality among religions would prevail. Months after the French Revolution began, many began to falsely believe that anyone who was Catholic or pro-Catholic was against the revolutionary movement of equal citizenship and thus began a “Reign of Terror.” While most Catholic Church officials fled the country, those who stayed were murdered in the streets. Monasteries and property were seized and sold. Laity who wished to continue practicing their Catholic faith risked being arrested, attacked, and murdered. The French Revolution, which began as a rightful cry for religious equality, resulted in murderous religious oppression.

How does this fit into the mantra of the ends do not justify the means or Aquinas’ Principle of Double Effect? In the French Revolution, the means of destroying religious property and political power was intended to bring about religious equality, a good and righteous thing. While it is not wrong to destroy property, it is wrong to destroy property that does not belong to you or rightfully belongs to another person. And while it is not wrong to strip someone of power to bring about equality, it is wrong to use injury and murder to destroy someone’s power. If we look at this situation in the context of the ends not justifying the means, we see the mean, the destroying of other people’s rightful property and murdering of people, is evil. Evil does not justify a good end and in the case of the French Revolution, the intent of religious equality was not produced. In fact, matters were made worse. And, if we look at this situation in the context of the Principle of Double Effect, we see it also does not qualify because the well-intended result (that was not established) came from evil.

What does this have to do with today?

While not everyone is going around knocking down statues, burning down buildings, injuring and shooting people in the streets, many people are. And many people justify and support their actions by claiming their violent acts are a means for promoting racial equality and ending police brutality. Promoting racial equality and ending police brutality are good things. They are necessary things. But I fear that by mimicking the acts of the French Revolution we are heading toward a similar “Reign of Terror.”

Remember, the French Revolution began with a desire to promote equality- a good thing. The means of promoting equality was through the destruction of property and people- not good things. This is what is happening today. Many people are trying to promote equality through the means of destroying property and people.

Additionally, it seems that akin to the belief of the French Revolution that anyone who was Catholic or Pro-Catholic was against religious equality, those who do not support the entire ideology of the Black Lives Matter Foundation is thought to be racist. Similarly, anyone who openly supports police reform outside of defunding and abolishing the police force is accused of supporting police brutality. People are forgetting that disagreement on how one should get things done does not necessitate racism and bigotry. It is okay to disagree. Disagreement does not have to lead to unjust discrimination and violence. There are other ways to express anger and civil unrest. History shows that violence begets violence.

Peacefully protest. Write letters and emails to your government representatives. Call and leave messages for your government representatives. Repeat and repeat these actions until your representatives are flooded with messages they cannot ignore. Vote. We do not need a French Revolution in the United States. Let us learn from history and act accordingly.

Let us learn from leaders who brought forth change in a peaceful manner. Let us look to Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Let us mimic their actions that peacefully promoted positive change to lead us closer to equality.