A quite enticing and seemingly reasonable, yet damaging and destructive principle usually dominates human action. It is the most unethical maxim of the-end-justifies-the-means. In the political world, representatives of all ideological provenance and political parties follow this enticing yet so destructive principle. They follow a merely consequentialist approach.
While it is necessary and intelligible that we strive for desired outcomes and intend our actions' consequences, we should always weigh the means to attain the desired result. Whatever means we use should always weigh against an unshakable background built by idealistic notions such as fairness, justice, impartiality, honesty, integrity. While we can err in applying these dimensions, we demonstrate the willingness to take others' rights into account and thus moderate the use of means applied to one's cause.
In the political realms of domestic and foreign politics, the following factors and insights can serve to moderate the often pernicious effects of mere consequentialism, to name a few:
- The dignity of the office and political function.
- The humanity of political opponents and the legitimacy of political opposition.
- The good of the nation.
- Capacity for self-criticism, including the acknowledgment of own mistakes and failed policies.
- The admission of guilt and the acceptance of personal accountability.
- Understanding of the nature of a democratic and open society that can only prosper on the grounds of a minimal amount of bipartisanship and mutual respect among political opponents, and so forth.
For epistemological reasons, it is quite clear that we find the application of the-end-justifies-the-means maxim mostly where a habitually unbalanced and unilateral worldview predominates and a transcendent dimension of reflection and temperance is lacking. The linear perception of historical development and a one-dimensional grasp of social reality does not pose many hindrances to applying this merely consequentialist approach in decision-making.
Whenever the consequentialist attitude prevails, everything it takes short of physical violence, and quite often even including violent means, appears to be justified in achieving one's goals – lying, cheating, denunciation, distortion, defamation, slander, slur!
The current political landscape – domestically (i.e., Affordable Care Act implementation; immigration debate; government shutdown and budget) as well as internationally (i.e., Libya/Benghazi; Iran) – provides ample opportunities to study the damage caused by mere consequentialism and its detrimental impact on all levels of social and political coexistence.
Irrespective of individual political belief systems and ideologies, the fact remains that we confront inferior human and political morals whenever we face the intemperate application of consequentialism.
