Do the Ends Justify the Means?

This question is one which has been debated for centuries and likely will remain unanswered for many more to come. Nonetheless, it is a question which is important to ask and attempt to answer, particularly as the world enters a very unique and delicate period in its history. I have been reading the story of Xenophon and the 10,000 Greeks who had to march hundreds of miles through enemy territory, constantly threatened by the elements, their opponents, and division within their own ranks. They faced many difficult circumstances where they were faced with the decision to make of whether or not the ends justified the means. One example sticks out especially.

The Greek army was marching through the mountains of western Turkey, trying to make their way to the Black Sea. They found themselves in a narrow valley, surrounded by enemies, who held the high ground around them. The Greeks began to suffer assaults from all directions. They were in enemy territory, hundreds of miles from any sort of safety, and in a seemingly impossible situation. The only hope they had was to capture some enemy soldiers and convince them to tell them a way out of the valley and to safer ground. The Greeks captured two enemy soldiers and then proceeded to ask them where the safest way for the Greeks to pass would be. The captured soldiers refused to give the Greeks any information.

The Greeks then had a difficult choice to make. The information the captured soldiers had was invaluable and without it, they would all die. The Greeks needed to get them to talk, so they took one of the soldiers and tortured him in unspeakable ways, and then put him to death; all in front of the other soldier. The second soldier consequently told the Greeks the way for them to escape, essentially saving the lives of the ten thousand Greeks, and enabling them to accomplish what many consider to be the most daring adventure in the history of mankind.

This would have been impossible however, without the “help” of the two captured soldiers. So, did the Greeks make the right choice in brutally sacrificing the one man so that they could all (ten thousand of them) make it home again? Or, should the Greeks have left the two men alone and tried somehow, (even though assured of defeat) to fight their way through the enemies surrounding them (likely resulting in even more deaths)?

This is a tough philosophical and moral question which is fascinating to debate and important to ask in our day and age. It brings to mind such recent discussions as what to do when terrorists hide in civilian locations, whether it is okay to accept innocent deaths as collateral damage, and of course the entire discussion over torture and water boarding. Is it acceptable to embrace the sacrifice of a few for the good of the many? Can victory ever be achieved without someone having to be hurt in the process? Where can we draw the line? Do Americans have a different standard then the rest of the world, and is this a good or a bad thing?