“The principle that the ends justify the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals.”
–F. A. Hayek
“He who chooses the beginning of the road chooses the place it leads to. It is the means that determine the end.”
–Harry Emerson Fosdick
The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten of the amendments to the Constitution, was first proposed to Congress by James Madison as articles to be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution.
Congress approved twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution in 1789 and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison’s proposal, they were submitted as “supplemental” additions. Articles Three through Twelve were ratified by the required number of states and became Amendments One through Ten in 1791.
The Second Amendment, which has become a matter of considerable interest in recent years, reads as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This was not controversial at the time. The concept existed in English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights. And for a variety of reasons today many Americans feel it is necessary to own firearms.
The importance of this issue to the founders was quite clear. James Madison introduced the language that became the Second Amendment and also wrote: “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Alexander Hamilton, like Madison a strong advocate for Federalism, was equally explicit: “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Thomas Jefferson famously said: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.” And he also wrote that “The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War there was mob violence in several of the colonies. In addition, many American lived in or close to wilderness regions where conditions were essentially lawless. The need people felt to protect their families was quite rational.
It should be noted that a primary motivation for supporting “a well regulated Militia,” articulated in the Second Amendment as “being necessary to the security of a free State,” was the strong opposition among the founders to the concept of a standing army.
Thomas Jefferson put it this way: “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” “Every citizen should be a soldier,” he wrote. “This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
The American reality in 1776 and 1791 was entirely different from that confronting us today. Yet, news of social, religious, and psychopathic violence imposes itself on us every day. Older Americans are particularly sensitized to what has changed: the radical loss of trust and the lack of civility, ethical integrity, and social responsibility we see everywhere.
We must acknowledge the compelling reasons why so many feel it necessary to own firearms.
That said, however, I must tell you I believe the use of force among Americans today, in defense of the Constitution and the American freedoms, would be counterproductive and incompatible with an effective strategy.
Our consideration in recent posts of the dynamic relation of means to ends should, in my view, make this clear.
Violence committed by Americans against Americans would contradict the rationale behind the impetus to violence itself. It would be self-contradictory, pitting brother and sister against brother and sister, subverting the integrity and viability of the American Idea as a guiding force for the good.
We can do far better.
I have presented principles supporting this assertion in previous posts, (see especially Nov 28 and Dec 12), and will offer a more explicit argument next week.
We need to consider this carefully and get it right. We face a long crisis. Many dark and dangerous things are possible.
Tom
Next week: Principled Means, Principled Ends
Note to readers: You can support this blog and the book project by suggesting that your friends and associates take a look.
If we are to rebuild the foundations of this nation in a manner consistent with principle, it will be wise to employ means that lead effectively to the ends we seek. Let us proceed with wisdom and foresight rather than emotion and ego.
Nothing will cause greater destruction to our purpose than a combative attitude that alienates the very people we need to win over.
If we avoid allowing our differences to tear us apart, we can choose to cooperate in addressing the structural problems that threaten the safety and security of our communities. And, it is only in the context of personal relationships tasked with essential responsibilities that we can come to understand and influence one another.
As long-time readers know, I have urged that we turn away from the dysfunction, dishonesty, and deceit of national politics to the extent possible, and join with one another to rebuild America in our local communities.
I have described three essential elements – trust, dependability, and constructive action – which will be necessary to regain stability and to move us forward. These elements will only be found in communities where neighbors rise above their differences to serve a higher purpose.
I have chosen the term “constructive action” to describe the means by which we can realistically progress. And I have explained in recent posts why a shared sense of purpose will be required to guide constructive action.
Shared purpose, I wrote, is a lens through which the challenges of necessity can be brought into focus. The efforts of diverse personalities can be coordinated. Purpose provides a standard by which to determine priorities and judge progress. In short, forward motion is essential; yet it is impossible without unity of purpose.
So, how can we understand constructive action?
Constructive action is action based on the refusal to do harm. It is action taken in a spirit of respectful kindness, a spirit founded upon the refusal to fight, to kill, or to damage. The principle here is the refusal to hurt – by impatience, dishonesty, hatred, or wishing ill of anybody.
I submit to you that this is the first principle upon which all other values, principles, and purposes depend.
Please do not misinterpret constructive action as merely a negative state of harmlessness. Quite the contrary, while constructive action in its purest form attempts to treat even the evil-doer with good-will, it by no means assists the evil-doer in doing wrong or tolerates wrong-doing in any way.
The state of constructive action requires that we resist what is wrong and disassociate ourselves from it even if doing so antagonizes the wrong-doer.
There is a close relationship between the positive spirit of kindness, respect, and trustworthiness that characterizes constructive action and the moral integrity of the free society we wish to build. The two are inseparable.
Constructive action is the means. Unity of purpose, grounded in the truthfulness of moral integrity, is the end.
Western political thinking has always considered means to be either an abstraction of tactics or simply the character of social and political machinery. In both cases means are considered only in their service to the desired ends, or goals, of particular political interests. We will approach our understanding of means in quite a different way, replacing an end-serving with an end-creating function.
Such an approach to means is necessary if we seek to apply traditional American values to rapidly changing circumstances.
This is the reason for my insistence on the meaningful engagement of all Americans in this endeavor, despite our vast diversity. A genuinely American future can only be realized in the context of our differences.
I believe this is what America has always been about. Is it what we want now, or not?
We have a clear choice to make. Either we choose to recover and reconstruct the fundamental meaning of the American Idea, or we can walk away forever from the safety, stability, and meaning of an America we can trust and believe in.
Tom
A note to readers: The next several posts will explore the meaning and implications of this “first principle.” I will take a breather for the holidays, so please look for the next post on January 2-4: “The Second Amendment, Then and Now”.
“Faith is the strength by which a shattered world shall emerge into the light.”
–Helen Keller
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
–Abraham Lincoln
“It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required.”
–Winston Churchill
“Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.”
–Stephen Covey
“Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do.”
–Leonardo da Vinci
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”
–Abraham Lincoln
“I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
–Robert A. Heinlein
“People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe.”
–Andy Rooney
“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
–Winston Churchill
“Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.”
–Albert Einstein
“Comfort and prosperity have never enriched the world as much as adversity has.”
— Billy Graham
“Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.”
— Helen Keller
“Nothing will work unless you do.”
— Maya Angelou
Liberty and the American Idea 