This is the question that struck me as being the overwhelming question hidden within the Shakespearean play "Julius Caesar" which I saw on Sunday. Noble intent may exist, but even purest intent can wreck havoc. Brutus was a man of ideals, of pure heart and unsoiled reputation. Yet, he was convinced to stand forward and make a political move that was swift and harsh. Those who pressed him forward were less than pure of heart and mind. Brutus loved Caesar, but loved the higher ideal more. A noble intent, yet the result of his noblest of intents was civil war within a country, the death of fellow senators (i.e. Cicero) and the suicide of his brother Cassius. Truly, did the ends justify the means? Can we only decide this in retrospect when we have the space and time necessary to be objective?
Does using dirty campaign money become okay if in the end you as a politician, put forward policies which bring the common good to the forefront?
Would cutting off a thief's hands be justified by their inability to steal any further?
Or more difficult, are the telling of white lies or lies of omission justified by the avoidance of pain/upset given to others?
As you begin to see, there is not an absolute. Initially my response was that the ends cannot justify the means, and yet I omit things that are hurtful from conversation all the time. Ethics are far from simple, the same for politics. Thanks to Shakespeare for creatively making us think on them.
