MEANS AND ENDS
401
to the idea that the end justifies the means is some fonn of absolutistic
ethics based on the alleged deliverances of conscience, or a moral sense,
or some brand of eternal truths, I wish to say that I write from a stand–
point that rejects all such doctrines as definitely as does Mr. Trotsky him–
self, and that I hold that the end in the sense of consequences provides
the only basis for moral ideas and action, and therefore provides the
only justification that can be found for means employed.
The point I propose to consider is that brought up toward the end
of Mr. Trotsky's discussion in the section headed "Dialectic Inter–
dependence of Means and Ends." The following statement is basic:
"A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in turn needs
to
be justified. From the Marxian point of view, which expresses the
historic interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to
increasing the power of man over nature and to the aholition of the
power of man over man." (p. 172) This increase of the power of man
over nature, accompanying the abolition of the power of man over man,
seems accordingly to be
the
end-that is, an end which does not need
itself to
be
justified but which is the justification of the ends that are in
turn means to it. It may also be added that others than Marxians might
accept this fonnulation of
the
end and hold that it expresses the moral
interest of society-if not the historic interest-and not merely and
exclusively that of the proletariat.
But for my present purpose, it is important to note that the word
"end"
is here used
to
cover two things-the final justifying end and ends
that are themselves means to this final end. For while it is not said in
so many words that some ends are but means, that proposition is certainly
implied in the statement that some ends
"lead to
increasing the power of
man over nature,
etc."
Mr. Trotsky goes on to explain that the principle
that the end justifies the means does not mean that every means is
permissible. "That is permissible, we answer, which really leads
to
the
liberation of mankind."
Were the latter statement consistently adhered to and followed
through it would be consistent with the sound principle of interdepend–
ence of means and end. Being in accord with it, it would lead to
scrupulous examination of the means that are used, to ascertain what
their actual objective consequences wiII
be
as far as it is humanly
possible to tell-to show that they do "really" lead to the liberation
of mankind. It is at this point that the double significance of
end
becomes
important. As far as it means consequences actually reached, it is
clearly dependent upon means used, while measures in their capacity of
means are dependent upon the end in the sense that they have to
be
