Do the “ends” justify the “means”?
This thought was prompted by an exchange in the comments section of this post.
Courtesy of Acorn, please read and reflect on this extract from a speech by the Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on 25th November 1949:
“If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do?
The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha.
When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods.
But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods.
These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”
.
I look forward to your thoughts and views.�I think this could be a very interesting discussion.
Related Posts:
Dear Shantanu
When Dr Ambedkar says, “It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha,” he unfortunately mixes revolution with non-violent means. In the literature revolution is largely used in sense of violent overthrow. That option (revolution) must be exercised only in the most extreme case, eg, when a Hitler gets elected democratically.
Satyagraha (which is generally a protest without breaking the law) is non-violent and transparent. It does not harm or hurt anyone. Non-violence can never lead to anarchy except in the case of uncontrolled civil disobedience. The concept of controlled civil disobedience does not permit anarchy. The objector (in a civil disobedience movement such as the Dandi march) knows of, and is willingly to face the consequences of breaking the law. The law is still upheld. The objector does not resist being beaten or arrested.
I have therefore personally no doubt that civil disobedience is a perfectly legitimate method of protest even in a democracy.
A democracy can never be a fool-proof shield against either incompetence, corruption or mobocracy (totalitarianism). We ourselves have seen the Emergency in India, apart from the connivance at the highest levels in government with mob violence and communal riots. A democracy needs vigilant citizens to participate in the democratic process, but if they simply can’t, or won’t (as in India) then a person dissatistified with mass-scale corruption may choose (if he wishes to) civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is an extremely strong act of affirmation. The disobedient citizen firmly believes in the future of his country. He is neither indifferent to its future (as many Indians are to theirs, today), or frustrated enough to leave — at least temporarily (as I have done).
While the preferred approach in a democratic India should definitely be for concerned citizens to organise into political groups and to contest in elections and change the laws they don’t like, when citizens are found to be either lazy and disinterested, or are found to be willing to live with total corruption and inefficient government, then alternative approaches are valid.
As for myself, I have believed so long in the more traditional approach, of organising a political opposition. Satyagraha can be disruptive at least to some extent on one’s immediate life. But satyagraha is not to be scoffed at nor ruled out. Sharad Joshi has used this approach effectively in mobilising farmers in Maharashtra and I believe this approach is a valuable tool in a democracy.
Indeed, in my first book (BFN), I regret the fact that today “[w]e never find any political leader protesting against our freedoms being trampled upon. No Dandi marches; no fasts to death to protest the absence of the rule of law or against corruption.” People should offer a satyagraha against corruption today. The battle for liberty does not stop merely by having a democracy.
Regards
Sanjeev
I do believe that in certain cases, the ends do indeed justify the means. Now, I am not saying that stealing and cheating are the right things to do, but take a moment to think about it all. If you were the parent of a starving child and you had no way of income- how would you feed them? Would you go trash picking, or would you steal some food with the intent to repay it all when you got the chance? Now- if one has no intent to balance out what they have done, then they should not follow “the ends justify the means.”
Think back to how this whole belief came about. It was Otto von Bismark who simply altered a telegram in order to achieve his goal of the nification of Germany. Now, if he would of never altered the telegram or took a stand for what he wanted, there might not be a Germany now. This could of resulted in the end result of World War 1 changing and possibly not a World War 2- which would ultimatally change the history of today’s world.
So, in conclusion, some cases of do the ends justify the means are appropriate, while others are immoral wrong doings.