When an important goal is to be achieved it is very easy to overlook the significance of the means proposed to achieve it.

Yet it’s only when we consider the means that we can form a sound judgment as to whether the happiness of the majority is of more or less moral significance than the unhappiness of the minority.

This is the basis for the time-honoured principle that “the end does not justify the means.”

Political liberalism is the art of the possible. What is good is what works well. But does this mean what works well for everyone, or for the greater number?

Is it reasonable that ‘what works well’ should be decided above all according to the interests of the decision-makers? And what about those for whom it doesn't work?

It is, no doubt, possible to get the national economy back under control. Some ways of doing so are probably more effective and more immediate than others. But does that make them better ways?

A prominent ex-politician once suggested to me that political liberalism and Christianity would never agree because politics is concerned only with ends, while Christianity is also concerned with the means.

Take today’s Ireland. Enforced emigration, redundancy and unemployment, and reduced access to necessary services such as health and education, have all been presented at different times as part of the plan for economic recovery.

They are largely seen as acceptable as long as the hardships are not experienced by the majority of the population.

It is ‘necessary’ not just that money be saved, but that this be done through redundancy and the non-replacement of staff.

It is ‘necessary’ that husbands, leaving behind their wives and children, go abroad in search of work so that their jobs can be shed and profit margins may be maintained.

Emigration is often presented as a golden opportunity, with no attempt to distinguish between enforced and voluntary emigration.

It is ‘necessary’ that hospital wards be closed so that money can be saved.

It is first argued that no hardship or risk to health is involved. Then concrete instances are pointed out: long delays in providing treatment; early discharge of patients who still need nursing care; failure to develop community nursing services.

At that point it is argued that these problems are caused, not by central policy, but by the failure of local authorities to implement it properly.

In this way Government is distanced from the undesirable consequences of policy decisions. And the ‘necessity’ of the decisions rather than the necessity of the consequences, is upheld.

It is seen as expedient that the developing world should wait for promised aid until we have taken the appropriate steps to guarantee our own, much higher, standard of living.

Yet it is considered reasonable that other countries should fulfill their commitments to us, given the nature and the urgency of our need.

‘Necessity’ is offered to justify everything. But what necessity requires all this human suffering? Some kind of inevitable, absolute and objective necessity?

In reality it is a necessity that relates only to a particular specific objective, namely the restoration of balance in the economy without reducing the living standards of the majority.