[bladegash]

Having had worked in DC much of my career, more specifically within the IC, I think more likely they believe in a general utilitarian philosophy that “the ends justify the means”.

It is a common Western world view to begin with, but my personal observation is it is especially common in the grayer professions of the world.

Took me personally reaching a point in life and asking the big question “do they really?” or in my case, “doesn’t it matter how you get to those ends, too?” before my own worldview/choice of profession began to shift.

[zmgsabst]

The impact on public morale when your “necessary” actions are discovered is an outcome too.

I find people who say “the ends justify the means” tend to ignore outcomes of their actions which don’t support their desired bad behavior — and generally completely ignore higher-order effects, such as the corruption of the US IC undermining the US rule of law in a way no foreign adversary ever could.

I don’t think US IC members have the wisdom to know what ends come from their means — they just shut their eyes, utter the catechism, and commit illegal acts that undermine the US.

[ethbr0]

Imho, A Few Good Men is a great movie because, especially for 1992, it spoke directly to those gray areas.

About ten years later, after 9/11, the US established Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where in 2023 there are still people (32?) held outside of normal legal processes.

I would expect that the 32 remaining, out of almost 800 total, are a clear threat to the United States.

But is it right to keep them there? What are the moral implications of the rest of America looking away while ugly work is done with their authority and in their name?

Colonel Jessep isn't 100% wrong (Santiago's death may have saved lives, but his death shouldn't have happened), and Lt Kaffee isn't 100% right (Jessep broke the law, but people are not owed unvarnished truth without earning it).

Everyone's who's worked for a large corporation, even outside the IC, knows that many things are done in that grey area, with the expectation bosses would deny asking someone to do it. See the recent news about Union Pacific train wheel bearing inspections being pressured to pass.

To me, the balance of any system is accepting an optimal level of corruption/abuse, in order to permit efficient functioning. Grease lets things slip, yet also decreases friction.

It's ugly, sad, and terrible... but also necessary. A perfectly enforced code of laws would rapidly implode any country in the world, because it wouldn't leave room for interpretation and exceptions.

[zmgsabst]

Sure — but that’s already substantially back-pedaling from “the ends justify the means” as a general policy.

And by that same argument, arbitrarily lynching some of the corrupt actors — despite knowing that everyone is operating in such gray areas and such things are necessary — is the counterbalancing force to that necessary corruption. The tension and friction which makes it work. You define the gray area through those prosecutions at the edges.

Each foray into the gray zone becomes a risk — and so only the necessary ones are made, rather than normalizing a culture of corruption.

Without that, you have all slip and no stick, so the machine falls apart. Which is what we see in the US IC (and businesses): too much lubricating corruption; not enough punishment. Taken too far “out of tolerance”, the machine becomes broken or even dangerous to keep operating — and so must be replaced entirely.

If you want to tell me you have the wisdom to operate in such gray areas, then you should be aware of that necessary reality too.

[drc500free]

Similar background, and I think it goes beyond an explicit "ends justify the means" analysis. Most of them think they are the Avengers, and anything they do is definitionally Good and Patriotic because they are the one doing it.

And in most cases, the good they are doing is quite tangible while the downsides (especially around due process, privacy, and other non-tangibles) are often quite abstract.

[bladegash]

Certainly a fair point on mindset and I’m sure it will vary depending on where you work. I generally agree with you, but wonder if the viewpoints we each described are not mutually exclusive.

The viewpoint you are describing sounds along the lines of “good vs. bad”, “us vs. them”, “black vs. white”. I guess the viewpoint I mentioned is more describing how one consciously or unconsciously reconciles/reaches congruence between their actions and value system.

In other words, one part answers the “why” we do what we do and the other answers the “how do we feel ok with what we did”.

At least from my background, there were no illusions that many things we did would be considered of questionable morality or destructive in just about any other circumstances.

That then brings about the philosophical question I think your perspective ultimately answers, which is “this is wrong, but…sometimes doing wrong things can also be right or less wrong than the alternatives”.

Just to add, I especially agree regarding downsides. Aside from being abstract, the relationship between cause and effect may be murky or seemingly non-existent.

Thanks for adding your experiences/perspective!

[youainti]

What I've realized is that the means determine the ends, both intended and unintended.

[bladegash]

I am not sure that I agree life is quite as black and white to where that maxim can always hold true.

I think we can agree that intent/means used to achieve an outcome certainly do matter (more deonotological/Kantian philosophical worldview), but I do believe that consequences/outcomes of action and/or inaction certainly matter as well.

All sorts of mental gymnastics we could go through as to my reasoning, but I try to be cautious in accepting strict maxims as absolute truths.

[beebeepka]

"we do what we must because we can"

[e2le]

"For the good of all of us."

[newjersey]

Except the ones who are dead

But there’s no sense crying over every mistake

We must keep on trying till we run out of cake.