The answer, as will be shown, is both yes and no -- because, this essay will argue, Weber maintained a two-tiered approach to value-free social science. On the one hand, he believed that ultimate values could not be justified "scientifically," that is, through value-free analysis. Thus, in comparing different religious, political or social systems, one system could not be chosen over another without taking a value or end into consideration; the choice would necessarily be dictated by the analyst's values. On the other hand, Weber believed that once a value, end, purpose, or perspective had been established, then a social scientist could conduct a value-free investigation into the most effective means within a system of bringing about the established end. Similarly, Weber believed that objective comparisons among systems could also be made once a particular end had been established, acknowledged, and agreed upon, a position that allowed Weber to make what he considered objective comparisons among such economic systems as and socialism. Thus, even though Weber maintained that ultimate values could not be evaluated objectively, this belief did not keep him from believing that social problems could be scientifically resolved -- once a particular end or value had been established.
I think its easy for those who are regular active members in good standing to justify this conduct because it does not affect them. But we know that both her bishop and stake president are both lawyers. They should know better. And I think given how high the stakes are it is perfectly reasonable for Sister Kelly and the rest of use to hold them to high standards, including following the rules they are supposed to follow. The end does not justify the means.
What does 'the end doesn't justify the means' mean? - …
The thing that bothers me is: who else has this happened to? We’re discussing this only because Kate Kelly published the letters. How many other members has this happened to where bishops and stake presidents have gone and done their own thing contrary to the handbook and potentially destroyed spiritual lives? Does the end really justify the means?
It would seem that the handbook is not only a secret to members but to the local leaders themselves.