By Ismael Rondón
Although expression that serves as the title to this article is not new, and in politics is very popular, many people are unaware of its meaning, or at least are unable to associate with the events that take place in the daily happenings. Almost identical to the wrongly attributed to political and Italian Renaissance writer Niccolo Machiavelli – on the “no” after “end” is the difference – the phrase which is relevant to us refers to the ethical coherence that should prevail between goals we intend to achieve and the means or tools we use to achieve it. The achievement of something good must not be built on questionable actions; it is unethical to achieve laudable goals by spurious actions.
Today, despite the crisis of values in present society, this concept is still considered a guiding principle; and every day we see examples in all areas of our life that just speaks for itself. In sports, for example, when it is discovered that to win, the athlete turned to the use of prohibited substances or committing fraudulent acts, the title is removed from him. In business, the merchant who cheats his customers to increase their profits, once discovered, must return the proceeds and compensate their victims.
Likewise, in the political sphere, if it is discovered that the candidate triumphed thanks to fraud, his victory is overturned. The same is true in academia when it is discovered that the student passed the course thanks to plagiarizing his peer’s work: his mark is invalidated. But what happens in the legal field is even more illuminating: if to obtain the conviction was resorted to illegal means, it becomes void and the accused, even if the offense was committed, is exonerated.
No matter how noble the goals are, when achieved through the use of improper means they lack merit, or at least lose most of its value. No matter how meaningful this action is, if we have to skip the rules in order to get it done, its merits are empty.
Conducting ourselves without adherence to ethical code that represents the maximum referred to and acting on the belief that the goodness of our goals redeems us from the punishment we deserve for any transgressions we have committed to achieve them is, among other things, dangerous, harmful and contrary to all rules that make life in society possible. Our good work can not exempt us from the responsibility of opposing to morality and the laws we have made in order to get them accomplished.
That is why tyrannical governments, despite maintaining a low rate of crime and corruption, are repudiated, because in order to achieve a noble goal – almost impossible in democratic countries – they use as a means the abolition of individual rights. The reduction in theft, murder and any type of crime are a good goal, but when achieved through disrespecting the freedom of transit, the violation of privacy and the right to a fair trial, among other violations, then this goal not only is without merit, but it is preferable not reaching it. If the end justifies the means, then authoritarian governments would enjoy ample popular support inside and outside of their territories. (Those who know the history of the Latin American countries are better able to understand this.)
In the political arena, more than anywhere else, a good deed should never justify the use of inappropriate methods to get it; this is extremely harmful to any people. If “working faster” towards the progress of a city – which undoubtedly, is a worthy goal – we have to evade compliance with certain procedures established constitutionally and disrespect and run over its legislative body, it is best not to do it, for no matter how much repeat that there’s progress employing these means, it is not: there is no progress that way…. it is going backwards. Neither the desire to “work fast” nor any other good intention can excuse disrespect for the rule of law, as the end never justifies the means.
This article represents the author’s opinion and not the newspaper’s. Rumbo accepts opposing views with the same respect.
