Is the end result really the most imortant part of the fight?

I wonder aloud here today, “Do we think about how we are affected by our actions, or do we just do them and then always live in the aftermath?”

One of Martin Luther King Jr.’s biggest emphasized points was that the end does not justify the means. He recognized that it was the means, the mode of operation, that laid the foundation for the end result, so if the means was violent then the ending would also have a legacy of violence. “We cannot believe, or we cannot go with the idea that the end justifies the means because the end is preexistence in the means.”  (Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience) This was one of the reasons why the non-violent method was so important for him. Non-violence was a constructive way to show anger and frustration and still contribute to a healthy end result. In his work “the American Dream” he says, “We must somehow bridge the gulf and somehow keep the means by which we live abreast with the ends for which we live.”

So I wonder again, do we ever stop to consider what we want the end result to look like? Do we take time to think about how the actions we take move us forward to the end result either in a good or bad way? We must remember that we can only get to the end through the means and if we are concerned about the end of things, then just maybe we also need to be concerned about how we get there.

Leave a Reply