Ancient Athens once faced a serious problem. A man was corrupting their youth, sowing dissent among the populous and asking questions that many thought could destroy their way of life. The Athenians dealt with this man, Socrates, by trying and executing him for “corrupting the youth.” Even then, many Athenians felt that punishing Socrates at all, much less killing him, was wrong. But the Athenians were protecting their youth and way of life. How could that be wrong?
The Department of Homeland Security has been one of the staples of the American response to the terrorist attacks of a year and a half ago. It is a department that exists to guarantee the safety of the American people from all threats, foreign and domestic.
However, in many ways the thinking that led to the creation of the department represents a threat to the American people. In our quest for security, we may give our rights and liberties away, in exchange for an illusory safety from outside harm. But why shouldn’t we be willing to sacrifice some of our rights (or the rights of others) for safety?
On the other side of the fence, the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and many other infamous crimes undoubtedly felt that they were fighting for their homelands and way of life. They, too, wanted their way of life preserved and unthreatened. So why were they wrong?
The answer to all of these questions is a simple, powerful moral rule. The rightness of a course of action is not defined solely by the consequences or intended consequences. The way the goal is achieved is just as important. In other words, the end does not justify the means. For instance, providing for your children is the right thing to do, but robbing people to do so is wrong. The terrorists were wrong because to protect their way of life they killed thousands of innocent people.
History is replete with examples of people doing or accepting the wrong thing for the right reasons. The Athenians executed Socrates to protect their children from “corruption.” Protecting one’s children is a noble goal, but Athenians are justly remembered for their wrong doing, the execution of an innocent man, guilty only of stating his beliefs.
During World War II, Americans sought to protect their children, homes and livelihoods-the right thing to do-by locking away the Nisei, American citizens from Japan, in concentration camps-an evil stain on the American spirit and history.
In both the preceding examples, fear was the motivating force in doing the wrong thing. Whipped into a fearful frenzy, well-intentioned people become agents of evil by justifying the means by the end. Mussolini and Hitler recognized this and came to power by exploiting their people’s fears and their willingness to do anything to abate them.
Today, Americans must deal with similar situations. With our new awareness of terrorism, we fear more and more for our safety. A natural reaction is to do anything necessary to guarantee our safety, locking away those we perceive as threats as was done with the Nisei during World War II. We could lock away anyone perceived as a threat to safety or silence anyone who said anything dangerous or seditious. But in doing so, we would be as wrong as the threats we fear. Our goal, safety, is a noble one, but it can never justify imprisonment and censorship as means of achieving it.
In our lives, each one of us will be faced with choices of right and wrong. Sometimes it may seem that doing the wrong thing is the safest or best for achieving our personal goals. However, as history shows, doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still doing the wrong thing. Letting ends justify means makes us no better than the Athenians who executed Socrates or the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center.
Nathan Alday is a senior aerospace engineering major.