1 Boring Old Man

We’ve had quite a run recently with the ethical dilemma – "the ends justify the means." The outgoing Bush Administration clearly comes down hard on one side of the argument. Assasinating Saddam Hussein, pre-emptively invading a soveriegn nation without provocation, torturing prisoners of war, domestic spying, using the Department of Justice politically, invalidating Congress with Signing Statements, revealing the identity of a C.I.A. Agent, etc. – this list has become interminable.The quote is often attributed to Nicola Machievelli [The Prince] translating "si guarda al fine" from Italian. The phrase is better translated, "one must think of the final result." I hope that’s what Machiavelli meant – it’s a better maxim to live by. But whoever said "the ends justify the means" isn’t the point, it’s been the philosophy of our country for eight years or more.

Now we hear it about our economy. Like everyone else, I’ve documented the political circus that has permitted the unregulated derivatives market and created the secretive Hedge Funds. All of the arguments that are being mounted to continue allowing this absolute silliness is that they allow people on Wall Street to "make money" for themselves and their investors, nevermind the effect on our economy and my personal retirement account, or should I say former retirement account. In my last post, I quoted Sebastian Mallaby, "Good hedge funds really do know how to make money out of market inefficiencies." Ergo what? that it justifies what they and the other players in the murky casino of the "dark market" – derivative trading – should be allowed to be the Captain Kidds in a Wall Street Carribean? Piracy made lots of money. Slave Trading made plenty of money. The Robber Barons made money. The problem is that it’s somebody else’s money – taken, not made…

If it is true that Machiavelli has been misquoted, and what he meant to advise was "one must think of the final result," his quote should be emblazoned in the entrance to the White House, the Capital Building, the New York Stock Exchange, and Market Exchanges around the world. What’s wrong with "the ends justify the means" isn’t just some simple morality. If one is even thinking it, it betrays that there is something awry. "I shouldn’t be torturing people, but the September 11th attack on the Twin Trade Towers justifies it." "I shouldn’t be blowing up the Twin Trade Towers, but the hubris of the Americans intruding on holy lands justifies it." "I shouldn’t be exploiting the market inefficiencies, but my clients want a good return." There’s always a but that explains doing something that exploits others and has potentially dire consequences.

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.

And there lies the ultimate solution to the dilemma of "the ends justify the means." The problem is that it is always short-sighted – focused only on the "the ends" desired by the person rationalizing the otherwise unacceptable "means." By definition, they are ignoring other "ends." It’s a completely selfish argument – a logical fallacy.