Ends and Means

I've been forced to rethink my idea of ethics recently. It's easy enough to see a world of black and white, good and evil, us and them. Too easy, it seems of late. On the other hand, inaction is self-defeating. By forever weighing the merits and flaws of every decision, we accomplish nothing. What we need is balance, but where can it be found? What determines the rightness of a cause? In a world where we our knowledge of most situations is great enough that we can see the good and bad in every situation and "regime," how can we know what choices are ethical?

The answer burst into my mind fully formed. Though it seemed to be born of sheer inspiration, even a cursory examination of the answer reveals that it is an ancient truth. Alas, it seems to have been largely forgotten, buried in a storm of spin and rhetoric.

How many times have we been told that the ends do not justify the means?

Was Nader Right?

During the 2000 election, in between accusations that the two major candidates were identical, Ralph Nader commented that it might take a Bush presidency to shake the left out of its complacency, with the implication that things could then be turned around. This attitude (and the hypocrisy apparent in it) caused me to leave the Greens for the Democratic party in the hopes of actually getting something done.

But was he right?