The  Association for the Prevention of  Cruelty to Animals finally capitulated and has agreed to pay over 9 million dollars in damages to the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus. Way back in 2000, the ASPCA and other animal advocacy groups sued the circus company’s owners, alleging cruel treatment of elephants. The problem was, courts found, that the law suit had been built on the claims and testimony of a former Ringling barn helper who had been paid at least $190,000 for his participation in the lawsuit. This meant that the suit was dead.

Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus counter-sued, as would I, as would you. I don’t doubt that elephants are abused sometimes in the circus; I’m sensitive to the argument that putting elephants in a circus is inherent abuse. It seems clear that a lot of dedicated, well-meaning people who care deeply about animals and their treatment couldn’t press their claims persuasively without help, so, essentially, they cheated. You can’t pay witnesses, whether the witness is telling the truth or not. It’s unfair. It’s illegal. It corrupts the justice system.

I don’t think the ASPCA would fork over 9 million bucks if it didn’t know it had been caught red-handed breaking the rules. Thus its statement that it was settling the case without “admitting guilt” rings false, and is unfortunate. Presumably, this was a lawyer-dictated move in case there is a criminal prosecution, though one seems unlikely at this late date.

If that’s not the reason, then the ASPCA should admit what it did was wrong. Obviously, this was the Saint’s Excuse* in full flower, with a group of altruistic animal lovers so convinced of the essential rightness of their mission that they were willing to cheat, bribe, and break the law to accomplish it once there seemed to be no other way—all to protect the innocent elephants, of course. Their flawed, unethical thinking has been at the root of a lot of terrible deeds through the centuries; it is the justification for terrorism and torture, among other horrors. We can only hope that the 9 million dollars taught the organization and its allies the timeless lesson that the ends do not justify the means, no matter how noble and important the cause.

But until we hear them acknowledge it, we’ll never be sure.

* The Saint’s Excuse (from the Ethics Alarms Rationalizations List): “This rationalization has probably caused more death and human suffering than any other. The words “it’s for a good cause” have been used to justify all sorts of lies, scams and mayhem. It is the downfall of the zealot, the true believer, and the passionate advocate that almost any action that supports “the Cause,’ whether it be liberty, religion, charity, or curing a plague, is seen as being justified by the inherent rightness of the ultimate goal. Thus Catholic Bishops protected child-molesting priests to protect the Church, and the American Red Cross used deceptive promotions to swell its blood supplies after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Saint’s Excuse allows charities to strong-arm contributors, and advocacy groups to use lies and innuendo to savage ideological opponents. The Saint’s Excuse is that the ends justify the means, because the “saint” has decided that the ends are worth any price—especially when that price will have to be paid by someone else.”