Do the ends justify the means?

Answer 1

Oh, yeah. If you really want something, you bet you're gonna do whatever it takes to get it. Now you have to control yourself, and not do anything criminal, because then, you'll have crossed the line and will probably never get to your "end" because you'll be in jail.

Answer 2

If the means to the ends involves doing harm or actions which on principle are dehumanizing or immoral, or ,by consequence, are unjust or inhumane to humans (including to oneself) as means or ends, the answer is generally no from an ethical point of view. The means in those kinds of situations do not normally justify the ends most of the time. However If life and death issues are involved in situations that lead one to ask the question asked, the answer may depend on the relevant and important details of the situation. One must be careful because the highly abstract Q leaves out all of the information necessary to answer the Q in a definitive way.

Also keep in mind that ethical problems where your Q is asked may involve moral dilemmas in which the means do harm to some people and at the same time helps other people. How one judges the trade-off between harm and good depends on the ethical rules you apply and whether you are virtue-driven,logic-driven or you are results-driven.

file TWH 08032006

Answer 3

Not knowing, in advance, that the means will indeed bring us to the ends... it can be even harder to justify, outside the abstraction.

But I don't think EVEN a Kantian can operate without consequentialism. To say: "Act as if thy maxim were to become a universal law" is a timeless one, that does not take into account society in the future "acting on thy maxim" you undertake presently.. is to lose the whole impetus of that moral system.

IF we knew in advance the right course to take-- as with something VERY certain, a scientific algorithm with 99.9% certainty, then I don't see what the big deal is. It's just making that connection clear that seems the hard part. But we don't really strive for "ends," in ethics mostly, but means to I know not what, further means I suppose. And if people are not on board with that desired outcome, then it doesn't seem to truly be the right course of action. But people are mostly, and often, deluded, so it may take some political force to coerce them to see correctly that "what seemed" unjust was, in hindsight, perfectly right. That begs the question whether the powerful truly know the "end" as an end, and that the means they employ will get them there.. But ASSUMING they do, I would find it a terrible waste to resist justice because I am shrouded in ignorance.

Answer 4

Well in order for the ends to justify the means, all the means have to be directly associated with the ends. Adn your "end" must be a specific goal. For example, you want to make a PB&J sandwich ("end"). The means are getting the jelly, the PB, the bread, a knife, spreading the PB and jelly on the bread, putting them together, and you have the "end"-a PBJ sandwich. But say you pust something else on the sandwich-say bannanas (its good-try it). If you do this, your goal, the PBJ sandwich, is no longer the ends, and to say "I have a PBJ sandwich" does not justify the bannanas-therefore the ends do not justify the means.
So, condensed as a non-exemplary answer- The ends justify the means if the means are relevant to acheving the end result in mind (the goal).

Answer 5

Well, most ends have a means (at least in the terms relative to the origin of the phrase).

So, chances are that at least some means are justified.

Evaluation as to whether or not the means are justified is at least partly subjective, and would require careful review of the case-specific means and ends.

Answer 6

No, it doesn't. In a mind that keeps justice, it values all means too to be justifiable. If means are not justifiable itself then the ends are not justifiable.

Answer 7

Depends on what ends and what means. If you were to say that the ends always justify the means, no matter what the means were I would say that that would be correct for someone who was amoral and had the power but for people who are moral (do not deliberately cause harm) it is not true.

Answer 8

Always, especially when you find a Machiavelli in you first pack of Renaissance thinker cards.

And to be serious, this statement means you will do anything you can to get what you want. Be that power, or even a bear from Build a Bear. And it doesn't even matter how you obtain that, be that cheating, lying, killing, or doing some favor. The fact that if you did do something wrong to get your power, or your bear dressed like and Elephant Polo player doesn't matter, for the fact that you have obtained that said power, or bear. A leader should not show remorse.

Answer 9

The end justifies the means only if you didn't compromise honor,values,principles,fair play,morals,the laws of man and more importantly the laws of God, common decency BUT then those who live by these principles and terms of morality have no need to justify their means.

Answer 10

The chicken crossed the road to get to the other side. Its end justified its means.

But suppose in order to cross the road it had to kill another chicken that was standing in its way. Would killing the other chicken in order to be able to cross the road in order to get to the other side still be justified? That would depend on why it wanted to get to other side.

Suppose the chicken wanted to get to the other side in order to save its chicks from being eaten by a fox, and suppose the other chicken was trying to stop it from crossing because the fox had promised not to attack its chicks if it stopped the chicken from crossing.

And suppose...

To answer your question, it depends on the ends and the means.

Answer 11

Never! If you can't justify your actions on the journey, then the reward you sought to achieve has been tarnished and is now no longer worthy of achieving.