Calling out "Ends Justify The Means"

There's something I feel I have to get off my chest because it's pissing me off to no end. It's something that I feel we as critical thinkers and attackers of irrationality in all it's forms seem to hypocritically either glance over ourselves in our personal lives or not take our fellow critical thinkers to task over and that's engaging in ends justify the means behavior. First I want to mention something that I was involved in arguing that spilled over here between myself and Mrs. Chief.



On an online forum a guy mentioned he was going to try hypnotism to stop smoking and asked if anybody knew anything about it, knew anyone who had been "cured" from it or if anybody knew if it was bunk. Afterwards, he said that he felt it was working since he'd been without a craving for several days. Everyone congratulated him and wished him well but I asked how the hypnotism went. What he described was classic side show hucksterism, complete with the "stiff as a board" trick and making the whole event drag on for hours to exhaust and wear down the resistance of the participants. The final trick was having them respond to things as a group while under hypnosis, prompting people to say what others were saying (love that peer pressure). I had told the guy beforehand that I was pretty sure that it could work but as a placebo, meaning if you believed hard enough that it would work, then it might just work (ie - see Dumbo). Now what set me off was he was one of the people brought on stage (right there alarms go off in my head at hearing "stage") to assist during the "stiff as a board" trick and having witnessed it up close said, "seeing it happen I KNEW it was real". Naturally I told him that just because you can't figure out a card trick doesn't mean the guy with the cards can work magic, and the same is true with what he saw. Well that brought on the shit storm from everyone, essentially attacking me for trying to undo the "effect" of the hypnotism and sending this poor guy right back to his cancer sticks.



Problem #1 - does anyone see anything wrong with a solution that could be ruined by someone asking questions about it and making you think about it? I can't help but think of those Roadrunner cartoons where Wile E. Coyote is there hovering over a canyon because he doesn't know he's not standing on ground. As soon as it's pointed out to him, he falls. Is this really the kind of cure you'd want? Is this the kind of cure you'd want for someone you cared about, one that was so tenuous? Unfortunately, many say "yes" because it may be working for this guy and they don't want to rock the boat. One big question often posed by these people (and by Mrs Chief which sent her on the warpath) is, "what's the harm if it's working?" What's the harm?



Problem #2 - fostering gullibility. Without questioning this hypnotism charade, it fosters both an increase in gullibility for the guy who went through it as well as anyone reading the story thinking perhaps there's a similar bit of woo out there to solve their problems, be it smoking or anything else. Now there seems to be reputable hypnotism offices, more of a clinical type of experience, and I don't want to disparage them since I haven't researched them enough, but I'm pretty damn sure they don't employ stages or other manipulative techniques. More importantly, if you read this guy's story and thought about giving hypnotism a try, would you bother looking into hypnotism to see if there is a clinical version, perhaps researching track records and such or would you simply go to the nearest one you could find? This sort of thing is perfect for bilking rubes, and stories like this guy's are wonderful advertisements for these cons. If you have any concern for your fellow humans, I would think it would then be a duty to try and prevent people from becoming future victims and the way you do that is by asking questions and critically analyzing this bit of woo.

The grander issue is often ignored because of the immediate local result. This is actually a wide sweeping issue and one that I often argue with people over, especially when it comes to legislation, but for today lets just focus on this woo. What the people (like Mrs. Chief) who fend off my inquiries and defend this crap since it's working are doing is employing "ends justify the means". This is an idea that whatever you do is fine as long as it gives you the desired result. This is something that we frequently take the religious and other irrationalists to task for since they do it all the time. Lying, stealing, violence, what have you are all fine as long as it brings about the desired result. Waterboarding anyone? How about detaining people without charges? How about pushing ID in schools to backdoor god into education? Ends justify the means. Yet somehow on a local or personal level, we don't see it or perhaps we do but cleverly rationalize it to make it excusable.

Now what I see as a problem that's maybe worse than the rationalizing is the people who stay on the sidelines not willing to point out the problems. Ironically, the ones who do this often only do it when it involves someone they care for, essentially becoming a participant in rationalizing ends justify the means themselves. "Well I think he's off his rocker but I don't want to put the screws to my friend." Yeah well nice going, pal. If you let that happen and then turn around and rail on someone else for doing it, that makes you a hypocrite. Congratulations. Now after suffering the arrows at home from Mrs. Chief over this, hell, I certainly have nothing to fear taking people I like to task over this. In fact, I'd say my motivation is BECAUSE I care about them. I'll take them to task because I think someone who says they don't want to take their friend to task as an act of friendship, to not upset them, is really making an act of selfish cowardice. They don't want to have to suffer the possible anger and loss of friendship from their friend so they stay quiet, and the result is far from helping, or caring for another.



So first off is this article from Chaplain. In her own words:
"Therefore, my primary reasons for offering prayers of any sort would be to a) ease the discomfort of another who would regard the prayer as an act of kindness, or b) fulfill a ritual that, while meaningless to me, is important to someone in my presence... if someone is ill and will be comforted by a few words uttered at the bedside, my prayer may provide psychological and emotional comfort to that person. My primary purpose in visiting, after all, should be to support and comfort the one who is ill in any way possible.



"Any way possible". Nice rephrasing of "ends justify the means". Make no mistake, it's the same fucking thing. Oh on the local scale, for that brief moment, it may seem to comfort the sick individual. What's wrong with that? Well, you're fostering the belief. That's number one (which Chaplain does acknowledge). But what if they're dying. what's the harm? Hello rationalization! Still, let's let you have that one. What about everyone else there though? Friends, family, hospital workers, all witnessing this prayer thing and this idea that it works or at least is comforting. Hey, now you've just encouraged and reinforced the behavior in them, and don't forget about problem #2 above, fostering gullibility. Yup, you've just done that, eroding a little piece of critical thinking and the desire to question inside of every witness of your going along with the prayer charade, and the better person and/or the more respected you are, the greater the effect you'll have, meaning the larger the piece is that you've just eroded. Nice job. Now you'll probably scoff at the suggestion that this can lead to people finding no problem with choosing prayer over medicine, as in the case for poor Madeline Neumann, but I will point out that in the Wisconsin Criminal Code 948.03 - Physical abuse of a child, there is the following exemption:
(6) TREATMENT THROUGH PRAYER.

A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under s. 48.981 (3) © 4. or 448.03 (6) in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.

Now how does something like that make it's way onto the books? How is it that people don't object? How is it that it took over a month for the DA to charge Madeline's parents? Because of the resistance to object to prayer over medicine, both as someone who believes in it and as someone who doesn't want to upset or offend another who does. Both of those sentiments get reinforced on a daily basis countless times by countless people by the "harmless" acts of playing along in rituals and other bullshit like Chaplain described in her article. Now the latter sentiment comes out at the end of Chaplain's article:
"Moreover, hospital rooms, family reunions, church pot lucks and other such settings are not good venues for launching into detailed explications of one’s rejection of religion."

So now, refusing to accept the woo boot at your throat, refusing to foster the belief in woo, refusing to foster greater gullibility in others and refusing to further erode their critical thinking skills is seen as being selfish, offensive and harmful! Reality has been turned upside-down! Suddenly refusing to participate in something you don't accept is seen as slapping someone across the face? Amazing. This is that selfish cowardice I mentioned earlier, that not wanting to rock the boat for fear of the grief you'll feel and the possible end of a relationship that you feel YOU'LL cause, when it's not you who would cause it, would you? It would be them. Perhaps maybe you don't want to face that whatever relationship you're in is a charade, that it's held aloft by the same things holding aloft the Coyote, a whole lotta nothing, so you play along. You tell yourself that being yourself would somehow be harmful and offensive to someone so for THEIR sake you protect THEM and thus the relationship. Make no mistake, you're engaging in more ends justify the means, doing whatever it takes to maintain a relationship, and rationalizing doing it.

Now it's time to turn to OG. OG was preparing to visit her family who are religious. She set a bunch of rules for herself so as not to provoke any hostility from them but did not delude herself at least as far as her motivation. "These are the rules I devised myself to avoid controversy" she said. She also went on to say:
"I don't want to be in a constant argument every time I talk to my family. I don't want to upset and worry them. I don't want to be the black sheep who isn't invited to weddings and other important family events."



Well ok, but then she said, "it's not their fault I'm like that." Yes, you're engaging in some selfish cowardice, but whose dictating these so-called "self-imposed" rules? Are they not the price of admission, the membership fees for being a part of the family? Also, by paying the fees, you are encouraging ends justify the means philosophy. You're encouraging it within your family, and in everyone who witnesses you playing along, perhaps even some of those reading your blog. Now it possibly becomes ok in someone's mind to pay similar fees, to play along with prayer charades or do whatever to maintain a relationship because YOU do it and you're someone to look up to and all of us who don't call you on it, who turn a blind eye to that, are guilty too, make no mistake of that. We're all throwing gasoline on the fire. We're all fostering an environment with more abusers and of course, more victims. Ends don't justify the means, and no amount of rationalizing will change that.