“All’s Well That Ends Well”. The title is a sentence. It is the only title of any Shakespeare play to hold that distinction. And because it is a sentence complete with a verb (the contracted “is” in “All’s”), it postulates a point of view with which we can either find ourselves in agreement, or of disagreement. And that’s where the journey begins for us. “All is well that ends well.” Consider that. Is it true? Do the “ends justify the means”?
There is not a definitive answer to that question in our culture. Even if we say we stand against that sort of philosophy, we still indulge in it as a matter of policy on a constant basis. For instance, the majority of us in this country espouse that we feel that killing others is wrong, and yet that war in a justified cause is not only acceptable, but necessary. If that is the case then we must feel that our actions are vindicated by our desired outcome. All’s well that ends well, yes? If we say that we stand against killing, but that killing is acceptable to bring about a desirable end, then aren’t we saying that those desirable ends are justifiable by those undesirable means?
There is not a definitive answer to that question in our culture. Even if we say we stand against that sort of philosophy, we still indulge in it as a matter of policy on a constant basis. For instance, the majority of us in this country espouse that we feel that killing others is wrong, and yet that war in a justified cause is not only acceptable, but necessary. If that is the case then we must feel that our actions are vindicated by our desired outcome. All’s well that ends well, yes? If we say that we stand against killing, but that killing is acceptable to bring about a desirable end, then aren’t we saying that those desirable ends are justifiable by those undesirable means?
Let’s hold the question up and look at it in another light: We culturally believe that thievery is wrong. We also believe that charity is a virtue. So, I ask you: Is Robin Hood a good person or a bad person? Are his ends justified by his means? OK, now ask the same question about the fellow who breaks into your house and steals your TV because he has no money. Are the actions of either one of these persons who are operating outside of the legal system justified by the ends they bring about? Did you answer “Yes” for one and “No” for the other? Yes, the situations are a bit different in each instance but the means, “theft”, is not. Do you feel that theft is sometimes OK? If you do, then to what extent is your acceptance of that fact rooted in your judgment of the “rightness” of the outcome?
Please understand, I’m not writing this to tell you my opinion of the ethical nature of the means or the end. This is not a “Pro” or “Anti” statement. I merely wonder: If undesirable actions produce desired ends, then are the undesirable actions vindicated?
OK…. Not easy questions. “All’s Well…” is not an easy play. It’s a funny play, to be sure, but it is also a challenging play. And because it is so rarely produced, I feel that it is a misunderstood and underappreciated play. I really believe that Shakespeare is challenging you with his title. You must decide about his statement. Do you think Shakespeare believes that his title is a statement of fact or a rationalization for unacceptable actions? Hmmmm. What do you believe?
OK… I hope that you enjoy our little comedy. By the end, perhaps our means will be justified. Perhaps not. My friend Will and I leave that for you to decide.
Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment