A Reg Flag Rises, Part X: Means and Ends

The idea that the end justifies the means is by no means a new idea, neither is it confined to Communist thought alone. Nor is it presently lacking adherents. Indeed, the ethical question itself is complicated and will probably be debated as long as philosophers continue to think. There is a certain sort of seemingly common sense morality that tells most of us, almost as a gut instinct, that the idea that the end justifies the means is a very immoral sort of idea, and one that is likely to lead to the destruction of law and order as we know it. But when we consider questions such as, "Should I lie to save my friend's life," or, "Is it acceptable to torture terrorists for the sake of national security", we will see, at the very least, that these are not always easy or simple questions.

In today's installment in this series on Communist thought we will briefly explore the connection between this particular ethical idea and Marxist philosophy.

The fact that Communism adopted this particular idea is not accidental or coincidental. Indeed, the idea arises naturally from other aspects of the philosophies which lie at the root of Marxist thought.

We have already, in the course of these essays, briefly examined the influence of Hegel and Feuerbach on Marx. It must be noted that the dialectical reading of history, formed first by Hegel, alters the traditional concepts of morality entirely. The process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis leads us into a system in which the nature of the acting agents changes too drastically to admit of any absolute moral structure. Imagine for a moment some sudden evolutionary leap in which ants evolved almost overnight into dogs. Obviously, traditional "ant morality" concerning duties toward the queen, or the necessity of communal work, would be meaningless when applied to a dog. The nature of a creature must remain consistent if any consistent moral code is to be assigned to it.

Marx, as was mentioned in an earlier post, held to the view that man qua man was a definition not yet attained. Man was merely a non-being in a state of becoming, he had not yet arrived. To any such being, progressing through antithetical dialectical changes, morality cannot be an absolute. The man-of-the-future has no need of the same morality as this present non-being in a state of becoming.

Absolute morality being done away with, we are left only with moral relativism; good and evil differ according to one's state, or place in history. Within the framework of moral relativism, no action can be good or evil in itself. Their moral value is determined strictly by their relationship towards some end, or goal.

Now, it is one of the great ironies of Hegelian dialectic, a system of thought so opposed to absolutes, that all three of these philosophers (Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx), believed in a final and absolute culmination of the dialectical journey, a final synthesis for which there is no antithesis. It is not clear why these men suddenly became historical absolutists when it pleased them, for no apparent logical reason, yet all three did. For Hegel the culmination was pure, god-like spirit, all-knowing intellect. For the materialist, anti-Idealist Feuerbach it was humanity set free from the enslaving illusion of god. For Marx it was a future Utopian classless society.

If, as we have just noted, moral relativism posits moral value for any action based only upon its relationship towards some end, thus denying moral value for any action considered in itself; and if the final end, or goal, of Marxist thought is a classless society, then it follows that the Communist valuation of any action as either good or evil is based strictly on that action's ability to facilitate the Communist goal. Thus, Communist morality may well be described as a morality of efficiency. The end justifies the means.

While it should be abundantly clear that this theory arises automatically from Marx's understanding and use of Hegelian dialectic, we have been unfortunate enough to witness the horrors it has spawned in practice. Abortion, divorce, patricide and matricide, mass murders, torture, sexual perversions, brainwashing-- these are all the results of a philosophy which holds as morally acceptable any action which appears to further its own interests and goals.

When imbued with unlimited political power, it is difficult to imagine a philosophy with greater potential toward evil and destruction.