''The end justifies the means". How often we use that little phrase to excuse a whole lot of ugliness.
A quick Google search did not yield a clear source for this statement, but there are apparently clear references to similar sayings going as far back as ancient Greek writings. History is full of memorable endeavors that started with a clear pre-defined outcome (the end) and then set out to achieve that outcome at all costs (the means).
Many quests start out as noble: Every person should be afforded equal rights & opportunities; or we'll put a man on the moon in this decade. But also: let's keep Holy lands safe for Christians (led to the Crusades); let's protect the integrity of the Catholic Church (led to the Inquisition).
Others start out less noble and less specific in their successful outcomes, and that can be dangerous too. Ask most Iraqis how it's felt the last 6 years to be 'liberated'. Or look at the result of the 'advance of civilization' to native American or bison populations in North America.
My point here is that once we decide that a goal is worth reaching, decisions made in the process of reaching that goal are inherently biased. Whether that bias is good or bad is purely subjective and absolutely driven by the quality of the goal itself.
Two simple scenarios to illustrate:
1) I have to get to work on time. Once I've set that as my primary objective, I will find it much more justifiable to break the speed limit, to run lights or stop signs, to engage in aggressive or rude driving.
2) I have to get to work safely. Once I've set that as my primary objective, my behavior is likely to be very different, and certainly more socially acceptable.
In both cases here I am trying to get to work, but the way I qualified or prioritized how I would get there made a big difference in the choices I made to reach that end.
In the movie Food, Inc. (highly recommend), the argument is made that like it or not, the food industry we have today is a result of what we as consumers have valued most, namely convenience and low prices. In the race to compete for our business based on price and convenience, the food industry has made many questionable choices. If instead they defined success (the end) in terms of the public's health or the environmental sustainability of their operations for example, the means they would choose would likely be very different. And they argue they would if we as consumers valued that more than price or convenience...
As with all the big questions our society is having to deal with (healthcare reform, climate change, scarcity of natural resources, poverty, war, etc...), it's important to make sure we define success in the right terms upfront and make sure the means employed to achieve the desired end don't create more problems than they solve. History is full of such examples...
