¡Cuidado! More Spoils!

They got me again.

It just occurred to me that even as I was shaking my head sadly about Chase deciding that the end justified the means on a large scale, I was feeling rather happy that brilliant House had solved Wilson's grumpy neighbor problem.  I thought the ending clip of an alligator chomping on a frog was a little strange but hey, House and Wilson are still roomies, Wilson got his burbling fountain.  Life is good.

One of the interesting things about the show is that the secondary story line often mirrors the main one.  How did House handle the problem of the grumpy neighbor?  He broke into his apartment, drugged him, duct taped him to chair and put him through some paces that resulted in the cure of his chronic pain, magically transforming him from Mean and Grumpy man to Mr. Niceguy.  Mr. Niceguy seems happy with the outcome.  But are we okay with all of this?

Chase acted on a large scale with the goal of saving thousands of lives.  House acted on a small scale with the goal of salvaging his living arrangement and maybe, if we believe this new House capable of altruism, helping a fellow human being.  House was successful.  We don't know what would have happened if Chase had done his job and saved the president's life.  We do know that Mr. President never had the chance to reconcile with his son who walked into the morgue with tears running down his face.

So, the question is still:  does the end justify the means?  Does it matter whether the scale is large or small and whether we know the outcome?  I said they tricked me because I believe that the answer to that question is "no"* but because House is a genius and everything ended well, I wasn't thinking of that--I was content.  

What House could have done was offer his help to Mr. Grumpy Man.  Sure, the man probably would have said no and House may have had to move out but here's the thing--God obviously believes in our right not to accept help and even to be grumpy and unhappy.  He gave us free will.  We have no right to take that from someone the way House did no matter the results. 

This was an important show because the idea "the end justifies the means" is a powerful one.  On a large scale, it can lead to a disregard for the rights of other nations or even our own constitutional rights.  On an individual level, it can mean breaking God's Laws in order to achieve the higher goal of personal happiness.  Of course, that never works.  Life is a journey.  The way we travel matters.  

I'll be sorry to see Chase go but I hope Foreman and the hospital do not compromise their integrity by covering for him.  And of course all of this makes the question of how House will weigh in even more interesting.  

* I thought of a possible exception--the example of pushing someone out of the way of a car or train.  Of course, that may not be so much an example of the end justifies the means as a particular action being okay in some situations and not others.  If you were a philosophy major, feel free to offer clarification.