When trade-offs between ends and means come up in conversation, it’s usually in a context in which some clear-cut harm must be suffered by someone in order for a desired good to be achieved for others. To prevent a terrorist from attacking civilians, for example, one may have to weigh the collateral damage likely to be suffered by innocent bystanders. To reduce the commute times of large numbers of motorists, one may need to cut through what was once an undivided neighborhood and erect barriers that will sunder the fabric of an unluckily situated community.

A new study by economists Roland Bénabou, Armin Falk, and Luca Henkel considers a class of ends-means trade-offs in which—unlike those examples—the unappetizing aspect of the path to a desired end is not a harm done to anyone in particular. Rather, it’s having to violate a principle, moral norm, or ideal that the actor tries adhering to whenever possible.

As an archetypal example, the authors quote Emmanuel Kant’s claim that telling a lie can never be justified. Kant, the authors say, argued that saving a friend or family member from embarrassment, or even helping to alleviate another’s suffering, are never acceptable justifications for lying.

As another example, they consider expressing approval of a repugnant statement. What if you could achieve a highly commendable goal, like having your contribution to cancer research or refugee assistance tripled, provided that you express agreement with what you consider to be a reprehensible declaration, such as “I think that the environment should be destroyed,” or “I agree that the U.S. should stop accepting immigrants from ‘shithole countries’”? (Recall poor Galileo, who in 1633 was threatened by the Inquisition if he did not recant his support of the Copernican view that the earth revolves around the sun. Here, making an abhorrent statement permitted him to avoid torture or possible death.)

Suppose, now, that your abhorrent statement will be made in total secrecy, assuring that it can have no nefarious influence on your own reputation or on the opinions others will hold about the referenced issues. Doesn’t the good end easily justify the nauseating means? Wouldn’t it be the height of irrationality........

© Psychology Today