Disclaimer: please do not read this blog-post if you are unable to check your political views at the door. The following has nothing to do with politics – yours, mine, or anyone else’s – and everything to do with posing a thought provoking question for your consideration.
Thank you!
Two seemingly unrelated stories are in the news the past few days. The first is the continuing saga of Lance Armstrong and how performance-enhancing substances and techniques apparently aided him immeasurably in his athletic feats. The second is a new movie detailing how Osama was tracked down, which apparently draws much of the storyline from the actual facts involved.
Both of these tales contain an underlying philosophical question: when does the end justify the means?
With Armstrong, I am not speaking of his Tour de France titles or cycling feats. Clearly, most of us now view these as complete frauds, and worse yet, a path that left many shattered, bitter, tainted lives behind. Stories of teammates forced to participate against their will in blood-doping, officials trying to regulate the sport being criticized on a regular basis for trying to get to the bottom of the issue, and lawsuits flying left and right, paint a very unattractive picture of the situation.
But there is the half-billion-dollar question. Sans Armstrong, and his feats, there would never have been a cancer-fighting organization that, by all accounts, has done much good in the world. From raising awareness, to funding research, to giving hope to many stricken with the disease, Armstrong’s foundation has been a force for good.
A complicated story; so with this part of the picture, did the means (fraudulently enhanced athletic prowess) justify the ends (a kick-butt not-for-profit)?
With Osama, we have a film that begins with graphic scenes of torture. Ignoring for now that there is a dispute as to whether torture extracted useful information about Osama’s whereabouts, it is pretty clear that agencies under our American system of government condoned, participated in, or sanctioned “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Based on reports from around the country, when Osama is killed in the film, audiences in theaters break out in applause.
When Americans are polled, we agree that “enhanced” interrogation — otherwise known as torture — much like “enhanced” athletic prowess, is wrong. Indeed, our Constitution explicitly bans “cruel and unusual punishment”. And how many steriod-tainted baseball players are getting Hall of Fame votes? Yet most of us would agree that bringing Bin Laden to justice, much like the creation of a foundation to fight cancer, is right.
Fortunately, most of us, on a day-to-day basis, are not faced with the choice to blood-dope or torture a terrorist. But we are faced with daily choices about how we conduct our lives and what we deem to be congruent with our ethical and moral compass.
As Alec Baldwin, playing Jack on 30 Rock once commented, “the semi-virtuous path is a slippery slope”.
So for you, can the ends justify the means? And if so, when?