Regarding MORE of MOORE (specifically SiCKO and The Awful Truth), we also discussed his preferred tactics and whether they were ethical, moreover if a code of ethics even should really apply in such a situation. This led to the question: “Do the ends justify the means?” Mister Instructor Man up front was initially quick to say that from an ethical standpoint, he didn’t EVER feel that the ends justify the means. This immediately sparked the discussion of what may have happened had he taken another route to achieve his goals. Would he have been as successful if he were to have adhered to a stricter, higher ethical code? Is it possible that since he did produce results that ended up saving someone’s life and promoting a company wide policy change regarding the specific situation in question that he is actually defining his ethical standards in a radically different way? Or is he simply, again, pulling on people’s heartstrings for a buck? All of these questions and more were posed in class and were met with opposing opinions.
The issue of the ends justifying the means was addressed in that the sanctity of human life and Moore’s dedication to preserving and bettering it are legitimate justification for the drastic measures he took with the vindictive character representation and treatment of the people that he deemed responsible for the situation. However, this is of course dependent upon Moore’s goal actually being based upon the sanctity of life. There were several contributors or participants in the movie who actually died before the end of its production while Moore, having more than enough money to fund the certain necessary operations, simply sat back and filmed while they died, and mentioned them in posterity for dramatic effect. It seems as if there is always a counter argument to every aspect of possible justifications for his application of unorthodox and (depending upon with whom you speak) unethical methodology that comprises his controversial films.
So, do the ends always justify the means? Personally, I feel that it is such a subjective question that it can only be applied to one very specific situation at a time, lest it transform itself into a twisted, tangled argument on various opposing life philosophies and even on Moore’s personal ethical beliefs and standards regarding the topic (about which we will probably never hear a straight conclusive answer). We can’t get in his head; we don’t know his intentions. The only thing we can gauge is the level of effectiveness in the spread of awareness and activism on the subject. I think that if he had used more ethical methods, he would have achieved a much lower level of controversy, thus engaging more viewers and consequentially raising his overall success rate in converting his audience to completely agree with his perspective. This would then eliminate the question of whether unseemly tactics befit the situation and are justifiable as long as they produce results. More likely than not, there would be good results from good tactics.