Does the end permits the mean??

I always wonder in a very complicated situation does the end permits the mean? Still unclear? Well shall we step forward a little further? Given in a narration, a guy, desperate for money to support his two children and a wife at home, seeks employment but was unfortunately unsuccessful. He then begs for help on the side road but instead was shone away by society with curses and hatred. He is now cornered, and the one way that he can think of is, to snatch purses or to rob a house. He was then caught and brought to justice in fornt of a jury of his peers. He is found guilty and was sentenced to prison because the end, as the jury says, doesn't permit the mean.

It is unlikely that one stumbles to such cases or is it? In our world today, every person is for him- or herself and only the strong survives. So how is strength measured in our world today? Brawn? Brain? Or simply put Wealth?

Another narration that I could put forward is, a very rich man, sly as a fox, was charged for embezzling money from the company that he built, and due to money and powerful connections, he is found innocent without a trial. Even if he was charged for it, a lowly person is willing to take his place, of course with a price and he is naturally off scott free. Of course in this narration neither his end nor mean is ethical, but what I'm trying to prove here is, in today's world, money talks.

There's always a saying that money is the root of all evil, but don't you think that it's not really money, which causes all these problems? It's always been human. Our conscience proves the guilt but still, its never able to stop us from doing what's wrong. It's until one day that we leave and forget all about it and the path of immorality sets in.

When one talks about morality and definition of man's law, what is it truly that one could say except it's ability to vary in accordance to the one's making it and in today's world, any wealthy man is able to change the law. In a book by Robert T. Kiyosaki, it is once stated that tax, for example, is a mean to help the government to support its people (as it is supposed to), but instead for the poor, it's more of a burden while the rich finds different ways to evade it legally. More and more people fall into the trap of credit card loans, buying houses and cars which they partially own, until the day comes when their interest debt triples and they are left with nothing except for a big title beside their name stating bankrupt. How can this be? Well, as long as it suits the rich, the mean doesn't count does it?

I believe in most religion gambling is a sin. Morally I believe it is too. Though this might be true, when we look at the big picture aren't we all gambling in our daily life? We take risks when buying properties. We try our luck in jobs that might or might not turn out well for us in the long run. We bet money we don't have to buy things which is not needed. Simply put we play the cards we are dealt and unfortunately most of us suck in this poker game of life. How is it that we are still govern by such law when gambling as we know it, is a sin? Well I guess, in the human law, as long as it suits the wealthy it's all good.

It's not that I'm trying to preach or anything, but a friend of mine, a lawyer, once told me, the reason that she gets into law, is to uphold the truth and defend the defenseless. Listening to her, and looking at her sincerity, I know that the day when the conscience is forever lost and forgotten its not yet upon us. There is still some good out there. Quoting a line from Star Wars Episode 1, "The trouble with the world is, people are not helping each other enough". It might take forever to move mount Fuji but if everyone is to give a helping hand, the impossible is no less than a possible... think about it.

Cheerios