402
JOHN DEWEY
viewed and judged on the ground of their actual objec,tive results.
On this basis, an
end-in-uiew
represents or is an
idea
of the final con–
sequences, in case the idea is formed
on the ground of the means that
are judged to be most likely to produce the end.
The end in view is thus
itself a means for directing action-just as a man's
idea
of health to be
attained or a house to be built is not identical with end in the sense of
actual outcome but is a means for directing action to achieve that end.
Now what has given the maxim (and the practice it formulates)
that the end justifies the means a bad name is that the end-in-view, the
end professed and entertained (perhaps quite sincerely) justifies the use
of certain means, and so justifies the latter that it is not necessary to
examine what the actual consequences of the use of chosen means will be.
An individual may hold, and quite sincerely as far as his personal opinion
is concerned that certain means will "really" lead to a professed and
desired end. But the real question is not one of personal belief but of the
objective grounds upon which it is held: namely, the consequences that
will actually be produced by them. So when Mr. Trotsky says that
"dialectical materialism knows no dualism between means and end," the
natural interpretation is that he will recommend the use of means
that can be shown by their own nature to lead to the liberation of man–
kind as an objective consequence.
One would expect, then, that with the idea of the liberation of
mankind as the end-in-view, there would be an examination of
aU
means
that are likely to attain this end without any fixed pre-conception as
to what they
must
be, and that every suggested means would
be
weighed
and judged on the express ground of the consequences it is likely to
produce.
But this is
not
the course adopted in Mr. Trotsky's further discussion.
He says: "The liberating morality of the proletariat is of a revolutionary
character.. .. It
deduces
a rule of conduct from the laws of the develop–
ment of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, the law of all laws."
(I talics are mine.) As if to leave no doubt of his meaning he says: "The
end flows from the historical movement"-that of the class struggle. The
principle of interdependence of means and end has thus disappeared or at
least been submerged. For the choice of means is not decided upon on the
ground of an independent examination of measures and policies with
respect to their actual objective consequences. On the contrary, means
are
"deduced"
from an independent source, an alleged law of history
which is
the
law of all laws of social development. Nor does the logic of
the case change
if
the word "alleged" is stricken out. For even so, it
follows that means to be used are not derived from consideration of the
