Ends and Means: What "Is" and What "Should"

My moral judgement in many issues is fairly simple: the ends justify the means insofar that it does not fatally or seriously impair the other person, group or organization. In other words, the ends must justify the means as well.

If for example, your job or objective for particular task is to say to land a job or to clean up the house then insofar the means of getting there must approximate that of the ends of getting there. If for example, you lie, cheat, manipulate to land a job then how does doing all these help you in doing a good job after landing the job.
Because landing a job means doing a good job and getting paid good money to do it unless your principle of doing a good day's wages differs from mine.

If your task for example for today say is cleaning up the place, then the means of getting there should be getting it done, rather than focusing on who, what, and when does it. And what you do-or means of getting there- interferes of reaching your end or goal like complaining and nitpicking, you are effectively self-sabotaging yourself or have ulterior ends besides cleaning the house as your objective. Either way, you are either 1) a poor manager or worker 2) hypocritical or manipulative/ 2 face.

Hence there have many instances where I was not happy or have been wrongly accused of being negative, when to the naked eye- it would appear that a person seems particularly scrupulous or detailed; and therefore extremely dedicated to the job- but in reality, he/she is effectively sabotaging his/her own job because she did not allow the work to flow; either through poor work arrangement or looking to impose himself/herself onto others without consideration for the work at hand. In colloquial terms, it means a lousy or poor boss or manager.

I find this phenomenon rather widespread not just at the work place or also in all aspects of personal life.

It is on this note to bring it back to the aspect of moral judgement of right and wrong.

Hence, at times, it might appear I would get angry at the smallest thing or detail but in effect I am not angry at the shoddiness of the work- that can be trained or corrected- but rather I am angry at the manipulative nature of certain acts.

One did not do a job well not because he was stupid or was not trained well but because he wanted to hurt someone and that to me- in any form, be it at work or personally- should not be tolerated. Skills can be trained finitely but not character or moral fibre. Dedication to me do not precludes hypocrisy.

The other day, I went to a restaurant to eat with a friend. A dozen waiters and managers walked past me without batting an eyelid, as if my friend and I was invisible. But at the same time, some other customers got the attention and time of the servers and continue to ignore my friend and I.

It is at this moment that I knew something was not right, they were ignoring on purpose and not out of busy service. I knew that they were under instructions to ignore me and I question the intention of the management to do so. And I knew from that moment on, it is going to be rough night.

Indeed, in such aspect, I should be nitpicking on their service but rather I questioned the intentions of these actions. It would appear that they were not running a business when they serve me but they were looking to frustrate or insult me. I wouldn't say they were wrong to do this, but I think if they are open for business, they should be serving equally efficiently regardless of who this person is.

Therefore in this aspect, the downsides of patronialism comes into play. We pick and choose who we want to serve or do depending on the strength of relationship. This would work if you are choosing your wife or girlfriend. If you here as a business entity or open for business, then act like one- and provide products and service as advertised. Don't play favourites because at best you look unethical, at worst, you look like crony.

Therefore, it is not because I am extremely hot-tempered and I flared up for no good reason but rather certain things just isn't right. Especially, when you say one thing and do the other, then by any moral standards, that isn't right.

What "is" very often deviate from what "should". But ultimately, how close one gets to what "should" while living in the world of what "is"- is in itself a testimony of ends triumphing over the means. And a test of what is "right" and what is "wrong".